LD 5533 
.P6 
Copy 1 



[E AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 
OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 



REPORT 



OF THE 



COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY 



ON CONDITIONS AT THE 



UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 




JULY, 1915 



THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 
OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 



REPORT 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY 

ON CONDITIONS AT THE 

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 



JULY, 1915 



■r^' 



' .h^ 



"5 .. ■ 



■4- 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Preliminary Statement 3 

I. Tenure of Office 7 

1. Term of Appointments 7 

2. Official Grounds for Dismissal 8 

3. Procedure in Dismissal 18 

4. Question of Truth of Principal Charge 27 

5. Present Attitude of Board of Regents with Regard 

to Dismissals 38 

6. Summary of Findings 40 

II. The Relation of Faculty and Regents 42 

III. The Complaint of Repression 53 

IV. The Intervention of the Governor of the State 

in Faculty Matters 60 

V. The Charge of Sectarian Influence Upon Appoint- 
ments 75 

VI. The Present Attitude of Regents toward Requests 

FOR AN Investigation 81 



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

On March 18, 1915, and within the five weeks following, 
seventeen members of the faculty of the University of 
Utah resigned their positions in protest against certain acts 
of the President of the University (Dr. J. T. Kingsbury) 
and of the Board of Regents. Sixteen of those who resigned 
concur in summarizing as follows the reasons for their action : 

The immediate cause of our resignations was the dismissal of 
certain of our colleagues and the demotion of others by a method 
so unfair and so arbitrary as to make it impossible to retain our 
self-respect and remain in the University. It is our firm belief 
that the changes made by the administration are but the expres- 
sions of a general policy of encroachment on our academic rights 
and duties by certain interests which are seriously threatening 
the efficiency of the University.* 

In view of the large number of university teachers con- 
cerned in the case; in view, also, of the fact that teachers 
in many subjects were involved, and that an inquiry into 

* Statement to Secretary of American Association of University Pro- 
fessors, April 17, 1915, signed by the following: Byron Cummings, dean of 
the College of Arts and Sciences and professor of ancient languages; Frank 
E. Holman, dean of the Law School; William G. Roylance, professor of 
history; W. C. Ebaugh, professor of chemistry; Charles T. Vorhies, pro- 
fessor of zoology and botany; Joseph Peterson, professor of psychology; 
R. L. Byrnes, professor of bacteriology and pathology; H. A. Mattill, pro- 
fessor of physiology and physiological chemistry; L. L. Butler, assistant 
professor of English; R. G. Sharp, assistant professor of embryology; F. 
O. Smith, assistant professor of education; F. H. Fowler, assistant pro- 
fessor of ancient languages; G. A. Hedger, instructor in English; F. C. 
Blood, instructor in English; Harold M. Stephens, lecturer in law; J. J. 
Thiel. T. W. Arnoldson, professor of modern languages, also resigned. 
The President's recommendations that four members of the faculty be 
dismissed, and that one be demoted, were adopted by the Board of Regents 
on March 17. Those dismissed were A. A. Knowlton, associate professor 
of physics; G. C. Wise, associate professor of modern languages; P. C. 
Bing, instructor in English; C. W. Snow, instructor in English. G. M. 
Marshall, professor of English, was removed from the headship of the 
department, but not from his professorship. 

3 



4 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

the affair could not, therefore, well be undertaken by any 
one scientific society; and in consideration of the gravity 
of the situation created at the University of Utah by these 
resignations, and by the charges made in connection there- 
with, it has seemed best to the Council of the American 
Association of University Professors to take m^easures to 
secure a thorough investigation of the conditions of pro- 
fessorial service in the University, and a report upon the 
case by an impartial committee. 

As a first step to this end, the Secretary of the Association 
visited Salt Lake City early in April, and spent four days 
gathering information to be laid before the Committee of 
Inquiry. The purposes and scope of the investigation are 
indicated by the following extracts from the Secretary's 
letter to the President of the University : 

The situation that has recently developed at the University 
of Utah has aroused much concern throughout the country among 
persons interested in the work of the American universities, and 
especially among members of the university teaching profession. 
It has, however, been difficult for those at a distance to be sure 
that they had correctly gathered the essential facts of the case 
from the incomplete and more or less conflicting ex parte state- 
ments which have appeared in newspapers and periodicals. In 
particular, the statements made upon the two sides of the con- 
troversy appear to have failed specifically to join issue upon 
certain points of interest. It has, therefore, seemed advisable 
to the president of the American Association of University Pro- 
fessors, Dr. John Dewey, to send a representative of that organi- 
zation to interview yourself and others concerned, with reference 
to the matters in controversy; and to endeavor to secure as full 
and impartial a statement as may be of the relevant facts. It is 
perhaps advisable to explain the nature of the interest which 
the Association of University Professors takes in the matter. 
It is coming to be a well recognized principle that the general 
body of university teachers is entitled to know, with regard to 
any institution, the conditions of the tenure of the professorial 
office therein, the methods of university government, and the 
policy and practice of the institution with respect to freedom of 
inquiry and teaching. In the absence of information upon these 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 5 

points, it is impossible for members of the profession to judge 
whether or not the institution is one in which positions may- 
be properly accepted or retained by university teachers having 
a respect for the dignity of their calling, a sense of its social obli- 
gations, and a regard for the ideals of a university. 

It is, therefore, important to the profession that when criti- 
cisms or charges are made by responsible persons against any 
institution, with respect to its policy or conduct in the matters 
to which I have referred, the facts should be carefully determined 
in a judicial spirit by some committee wholly detached from any 
local or personal controversy, and in some degree representative 
of the profession at large. It is in this spirit, and for these pur- 
poses, that information is sought in this instance. What appears 
to be particularly desirable, in the present case, is a fuller and 
more definite statement than has yet been made pubhc upon 
certain matters of fact which still remain not wholly clear, but 
which are, presumably, not incapable of ascertainment. We, of 
course, assume that the administration of the University is equally 
desirous that all the facts in any way pertinent be thus fully 
made known, and submitted to the impartial judgment of both 
the academic and the general public. 

We therefore venture to count upon your aid in this attempt 
to draw up a complete and unbiased summary of the circum- 
stances of the case ; this, we hope, may be of some service to the 
University as well as to our profession. 

The evidence thus brought together consists of the fol- 
lowing: replies in writing from the majority and the mi- 
nority of the Board of Regents to twenty-two questions 
submitted by the Secretary; oral statement made to the 
Secretary by the Chairman of the Executive Conamittee of 
the Board of Regents, Richard Young, Esq.; oral statement 
of President Kingsbury, supplemented by written replies 
to seventeen questions; collective statement of the resign- 
ing professors; oral and written individual statements and 
replies to questions by Dean Cummings, Dean Holman and 
six other professors who have resigned, by those dismissed, 
and by fifteen members of the faculty who have not re- 
signed; affidavits of Dean Cummings, Prof. R. R. Lyman, 
Mr. M. H. Sevy, and formal declarations of others, in regard 



6 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

to one of the incidents in the case, and copy of letter of the 
Governor of Utah to the Board of Regents, relating to the 
same incident; affidavits of Dr. A. A. Knowlton and Messrs. 
E. H. Beckstrand, W. R. Argyle, J. H. Wolfe, John Jensen 
and Nelson La Mar, relating to one of the charges; written 
statement of Mr. O. J, P. Widtsoe; letters of former stu- 
dents of Prof. G. M. Marshall and of Prof. G. C. Wise; 
"Public Statement" of the Board of Regents issued 
March 18, 1915, letters of resignation, and other documents 
already published. The Committee desires to acknowl- 
edge the courtesy with which both the personal inquiries 
of its representative while in Salt Lake City, and subse- 
quent written communications, have been responded to by 
the President and Board of Regents, by the dismissed 
members of the Faculty, those who have resigned, and others 
concerned. 

The undersigned have been appointed by the President 
of the American Association of University Professors a 
committee to examine this evidence and to present findings 
in accordance with it. Of the members of the Committee, 
Messrs. Seligman, Fetter and Lichtenberger represent the 
Joint Committee on Academic Freedom, constituted in 1914 
by the American Economic Association, the American Politi- 
cal Science Association, and the American Sociological 
Society; and they act in this case with the authorization of 
that body. Mr. Warren similarly represents the Committee 
on the Academic Status of Psychology of the American 
Psychological Association. The remaining members of the 
Committee are appointed from the general membership of 
the Association of University Professors. 

The report following is intended primarily to present, 
not a narrative of the incidents which have recently oc- 
curred at the University of Utah, but an analysis of the 
various conditions and administrative methods at the Uni- 
versity which affect, or have been alleged to affect, the 
status, the educational work, or the professional or personal 
rights, of the members of its faculty. Of these conditions 
and methods the Committee has judged chiefly in the light 



REPOET OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 7 

of official acts prior to or immediately following March 18; 
but it presents its findings in a topical order, and not in 
the chronological order of those acts. The Committee 
regrets that it has been obliged to enter into so much detail 
in the citation and analysis of evidence, especially in con- 
nection with some incidents which would, apart from their 
relation to the case as a whole, possess little public interest. 
The case, however, is one of considerable complexity, and 
it is further complicated by apparent conflicts in the testi- 
mony with reference to certain material questions of fact. 
In these circumstances, it has appeared advisable to set 
forth all of the essential evidence, so that readers of this 
report may be qualified to form their own judgment as to 
the truth of the matter. 



I. TENURE OF OFFICE 

1. Term of Appointments. All appointments to the Fac- 
ulty of the University are for the term of one year and, in 
accordance with the following section of the Compiled 
Laws of Utah, may be terminated at the will of the Board 
of Regents even before the expiration of that term: 

All contracts hereafter made with professors, iastructors, or 
employes, whether for a definite or indefinite time, shall be sub- 
ject to termination at the will of the Board, or of its Executive 
Comimittee, if the Board be not in session, when the interests of 
the University so require. (Section 2300.) 

The Committee is, however, informed by the Board of 
Regents that the power of terminating contracts conferred 
by this statute has never been exercised. With regard to 
the policy and past practice of the University in the matter 
of reappointments, the following question has been sub- 
mitted to the Board of Regents: ''Is there, in the case of 
professors in the University of Utah, a definite presump- 
tion of continuous reappointment after a certain number 
of years of satisfactory service?" The Board answers: 

While there has been no distinct and definite rule, it has gen- 
erally been understood that there was a presumption of con- 
tinuous reappointment after a number of years of satisfactory 
service. A number of years ago a schedule was arranged under 
which, after a certain number of years of service, salaries were 
increased from time to time and promotions in grade given. We 
deem it better, however, to state exact facts and practice. 

The Board accordingly reviews the records of the Faculty 
since 1878, and concludes: 

From the above data it will be seen that during nearly forty 
years only eight professors have failed of renomination, and of 
these, four failed because of friction between the professors them- 
selves, making it imperative that the University should dispense 
with the services of one or both of the disputants. 

8 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 9 

2. Official Grounds for Dismissal* In any attempt to 
judge of the conditions of professorial service in a uni- 
versity, it is manifestly important to know what are offi- 
cially regarded as pertinent and sufficient grounds for dis- 
missal. There appear to be at the University of Utah no 
statutes or permanent regulations of the governing board 
defining these grounds. They are determined in individual 
cases by the judgment of the President and Board of Regents 
holding office at the time; and may be diversely determined 
at different times. In this sense, the government of this 
University, like that of many others in America, is a gov- 
ernment of men and not of laws. The acts or utterances 
which are by the present administration of the University 
treated as among just causes for dismissal are indicated by 
the recommendations made by President Kingsbury, and 
adopted by the Board of Regents, on March 17. On this 
date. President Kingsbury, besides recommending that two 
instructors, Messrs. Snow and Bing, be not reappointed, 
also recommended the dismissal of two associate professors, 
Messrs. Knowlton and Wise, and stated the charges against 
these professors as follows: 

1st. Dr. A. A. Knowlton. The following are the reasons why 
I do not nominate Dr. A. A. Knowlton for re-employment: I 
am convinced that Dr. Knowlton has worked against the adminis- 
tration of the University. Dr. Knowlton has also spoken very 
disrespectfully of the Chairman of the Board of Regents. My 
opinion is that respect is due the Regents, especially their presid- 
ing officer, from the Faculty, and that therefore the author of 
such remarks should not be retained in the employment of the 
University. 

£d. Associate Professor George C. Wise. I cannot recommend 
Prof. George C. Wise for re-employment in the University for 
reasons as follows: I am convinced that Professor Wise has 

* The term "dismissal" is used in the following, for the sake of brevity, 
to designate a refusal of reappointment to any member of the Faculty 
above the grade of instructor. As instructors in other colleges frequently 
hold only one-year appointments, a refusal to reappoint teachers of this 
rank at the University of Utah cannot be regarded as necessarily equiva- 
lent to a dismissal. 



10 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OP UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

spoken in a depreciatory way about the University before his 
classes, and that he has also spoken in a very uncomplimentary 
way about the administration. 

The four following acts are therefore regarded by Presi- 
dent Kingsbury as among the proper grounds for public 
charges, followed by dismissal: (a) ''speaking in a very 
uncomplimentary way about the administration;" (b) 
''speaking very disrespectfully of the Chairman of the 
Board of Regents;" (c) "speaking in a depreciatory way of 
the University before classes;" (d) "working against the 
administration." The last mentioned charge appears to the 
Committee to be of a greater significance than the first 
three, and is dealt with separately below, under the head 
of "Truth of Principal Charge." With regard to the other 
three charges, the Committee has attempted to ascertain 
more precisely the nature and occasions of the expressions 
used by Messrs. Wise and Knowlton, which are set down by 
the President as reasons for dismissing these professors. 

(a) President Kingsbury was asked to inform the Com- 
mittee as to the nature of Mr. Wise's uncomplimentary 
references to the University administration, and to state 
whether these references were made in private conversa- 
tion or on a public occasion. Dr. Kingsbury replies that 
the expressions complained of were "statements as to the 
unfitness of the President for his position;" and that "it 
is not claimed that the uncomplimentary references were 
made in public, but they were made freely and without 
reserve." Mr. Wise, however, states that he never cate- 
gorically declared Dr. Kingsbury to be unfit for his position, 
though he has in private talk made criticisms of the Presi- 
dent and of several of his official acts and policies. "In 
departmental matters," Mr. Wise writes, "I have frequently 
differed from Dr. Kingsbury. I have opposed the policy 
which regulated the number of teachers by the plans of the 
President of the University and not by the number of 
students to be helped. Another 'policy' I have fought is 
that of keeping Germanics and Romance in one depart- 
ment." Mr. Wise adds that once, in reply to a question 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 11 

from a group of students after a lecture, he said that in his 
judgment a pohtical meeting of a student club, which had 
been forbidden by the President, should have been allowed. 
Mr. Wise, declares, however, that on this occasion he 
''cautioned the students against being hasty in their judg- 
ment of the President, adding that he probably knew just 
what he was doing," and suggesting that the laws of Utah 
possibly made the President's action inevitable. Mr. Wise 
further states: 

I have in many instances defended and praised Dr. Kingsbury, 
both privately and publicly, in classes and elsewhere. Until 
this alleged "breach" our relations have been in general, so far 
as I know, friendly and pleasant. 

(b) Professor Knowlton writes : 

The charge of disrespect to the Chairman of the Board of 
Regents has been made specific, and is that on certain occasions 
in private conversation I said: "Isn't it too bad that we have a 
man like that as Chairman of the Board of Regents!" or words 
to that effect. It has been specifically denied that there was 
any objection to the form of the remark.* 

With reference to this charge the following question was 
submitted to President Kingsbury: 

One of the two reasons given for the dismissal of Professor 
Knowlton is that he "has spoken very disrespectfully of the 
Chairman of the Board of Regents." Professor Knowlton has 
publicly declared that he had not spoken in this manner, beyond 
expressing an unfavorable opinion of the qualifications of the 
Chairman of the Board of Regents for the position he holds; 
and that this opinion was expressed only in a private conversa- 
tion. Does President Kingsbury deny these statements of Pro- 
fessor Knowlton's? 

President Kingsbury's reply was in the negative. It is 
clear also from another of President Kingsbury's answersf 

* Signed statement in The Utah Survey, April, 1915. 

t "Before the statement was made to theBoardof Regents, the President 
brought Dr. Knowlton and the person to whom the remarks were first 
made. The circumstances under which the remarks were made were gone 
over and the remarks, as charged, were repeated to Dr. Knowlton, and he 
did not make a denial of them." 



12 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

that the charge referred to remarks made on one occasion 
to one person, who, the Committee is informed, was a 
member of the University faculty. 

(c) The charge that Mr. Wise ''spoke in a depreciatory 
way of the University before classes" is thus amphfied by 
President Kingsbury in his statement to the Committee: 

Professor Wise, by repeated unfavorable comparisons of the 
University of Utah with other institutions, depreciated its value 
to the students and made some of them dissatisfied with the Uni- 
versity, and others became dissatisfied with his teaching in con- 
sequence. Professor Wise persisted in making these unfavorable 
comparisons even after his attention had been called to their 
bad results. Shortly before the President decided not to recom- 
mend him for re-employment, a certain professor in the University 
entered an indignant protest against Professor Wise's teachings, 
declaring that he was continually destroying, in the minds of the 
students, that confidence in their University which he and other 
professors were trying to build up. 

Mr. Wise has been informed of this amplification of the 
charge against him. He affirms in reply that criticisms of 
the University on his part were neither habitual nor deroga- 
tory, and that they were always constructive in purpose. 
He writes further: 

The discussions of the University before classes were "frequent" 
during the comparatively short time when second-year German 
and French classes were studying German and French institutions 
of learning, but in respect to the remaining time, and to other 
classes, they were decidedly not frequent. These discussions, the 
alleged "depreciation," have always been suggested by the texts 
studied and have frequently been started by the students them- 
selves. 

Mr. Wise states that he beheves this charge to have been 
based chiefly upon the following incident: One day early 
in 1913, in reply to a direct question from a student in the 
course of a class discussion, he expressed the opinion that 
the educational standing of the University of Utah was 
inferior to that of such a University as Yale, and between 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 13 

that of Colorado and that of Nevada. ''I did not forget 
to add," says Mr. Wise, "that in this respect Utah was 
improving rapidly." The incident was evidently reported 
by some student or students, and brought to the notice of 
the President. ''Shortly after," writes Mr. Wise, "I was 
called to the President's office on account of this discussion. 
Upon criticism from the President, I refused to recant 
without a statement from him that I was wrong. This 
statement he did not make, and the matter dropped." 
"During my eleven years of service here," Professor Wise 
declares, "I have habitually and constantly praised the 
University. This academic year I have been sent out by 
the University authorities as a lecturer from the institution; 
this has been the case since 1912." 

The Committee has also received letters from thirteen 
students or recent graduates of the University, members 
of Professor Wise's classed during the past three years; all 
testify that they have never heard him "depreciate the 
University." Mr. W. J. McCoy writes: 

I completed two years of college work in German under Dr. 
Wise. Some of this work was done in small sized extension classes 
where I had every opportunity in the world to "draw him out," 
and I assert that I never heard him utter a disloyal sentiment 
towards Dr. Kingsbury, nor in any way depreciate the University. 
On the other hand, I have often heard him predict great things 
for the University of Utah. 

Miss Ethel S. Chance writes: 

During the current year I have been a regular student in Pro- 
fessor Wise's class room. I have never heard him speak depre- 
ciatingly of the University, nor have I known a single student to 
S'ay that he did. His whole attitude towards his classes tends to 
the raising of standards of scholarship, and can in no manner 
lessen the affection students feel towards their Alma Mater. 

Mr. La Mar Nelson of the present senior class writes : 

Professor Wise has occasionally drawn comparisons between 
European universities and American universities. He has praised 



14 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

the good points of American schools and methods of education, 
and has been free and outspoken in his depreciation of the weak 
points. Some of these criticisms, of course, were apphcable to 
our own University. The criticisms, too, were constructive 
always. I know of no comment among the students or faculty 
members of the University as a result of these statements and 
criticisms. 

The other letters from recent students are similar in 
tenor. 

The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Professor 
Cummings, writes: 

Professor Wise has ever worked faithfully and earnestly for 
the upbuilding of the institution. I have never heard any state- 
ment from him, or any statement quoted from him, that would 
seem to indicate disloyalty. The only things that have come^ 
to me pointing in that direction are a hint from the President 
early in the present school year, and an occasional statement 
from students on circumstances occurring in class, when Pro- 
fessor Wise had evidently spoken of some weakness, as it seemed 
to him, in the institution, to arouse the students to discussion 
and make them interested citizens in their university world. In 
the former instance, President Kingsbury spoke to me in his 
oiSice one day regarding the severe criticism of the work of the 
School of Arts and Sciences by members of the faculty and by the 
pubhc. On my several-times repeated request to know the source 
of that criticism, the President said as I was about to leave the 
office, "You'd better talk with Professor Wise. I just suggest 
that." During our conversation, I had said to President Kings- 
bury that I did not think we should spend our time and energy 
considering criticisms that were general and indefinite, and brought 
by people who were unwilling to come out into the open, espe- 
cially when he and I knew those criticisms to be unjust and un- 
warranted. I have found no good grounds for considering Pro- 
fessor Wise disloyal or unjust in his criticism of the institution. 

Dean Holman deposes that "he is, and has been, ac- 
quainted with many students who have pursued courses 
of study under Professor Wise; that he has known some of 
these students intimately, and often talked with them about 



REPOKT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 15 

their University work; that, until after March first, 1915, 
he never heard it reported either by students or by Faculty 
members that Professor Wise had spoken unfavorably of 
the University or otherwise criticized it detrimentally; and 
that he had made inquiry of students and faculty members, 
and so far as he is informed and knows, the charge of un- 
favorable criticism is made now only by persons who are 
attempting to justify the recent action of the University 
of Utah administration." Other colleagues of Professor 
Wise give similar testimony. 

This concludes the evidence which the Committee pre- 
sents as to the specific meaning of the first three charges, 
and as to the circumstances under which Professors Knowl- 
ton and Wise employed the expressions upon which Presi- 
dent Kingsbury based his recommendation that the con- 
nection of these professors with the University of Utah 
be terminated. 

The Committee conceives it to be scarcely needful to 
say that it regards neither of the first two charges as pre- 
senting any proper ground for the dismissal of University 
teachers. On the other hand, it seems to the Committee 
to be a wholly unwarrantable extension of ofiicial authority, 
that the President and the Chairman of the governing 
board of a state-supported institution should publicly an- 
nounce, or permit it to be announced, that unfavorable 
judgments of their qualifications for office may be uttered 
by professors in private conversation only on peril of dis- 
missal. In particular, that charge (b) should have been 
brought against Professor Knowlton, appears to indicate 
the existence of a highly undesirable condition at the Uni- 
versity of Utah. It means that casual expressions uttered 
in informal talk with a colleague, repeated by him, and 
carried by gossip to the ears of the President and of the 
official criticised, may become the basis of public charges 
leading to a loss of position. The law of Use-majesU can 
not with advantage, in the Committee's opinion, be applied 
to university faculties in America. 



16 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

That an abstention from such remarks as that made by 
Professor Knowlton will, so long as Dr. Kingsbury is Presi- 
dent, be regarded by him as among the conditions of the 
tenure of professorships in the University of Utah, is indi- 
cated by the President's reply to the following question: 

Does the expression in private conversation of an unfavorable 
opinion of the Chairman of the Board seem to President Kings- 
bury a proper ground for dismissing or otherwise disciplining a 
university professor? 

Answer: Should a very disrespectful remark be made against 
an official, as was the case here, and it should become generally 
known, it would very properly become a strong factor against the 
reemployment of such a professor. 

With regard to the charge of ''depreciating the Univer- 
sity before students," brought against Professor Wise, the 
Conunittee considers that such expressions, if exaggerated, 
habitual, and flippant or malignant in tone, might conceiv- 
ably give ground for the dismissal of a University teacher. 
The Committee does not, however, find it to be established 
by the evidence that Professor Wise's remarks upon the 
educational status of the University, or his comparisons of it 
with other institutions, exceeded the limits of legitimate, or 
even desirable, criticism, or that they were animated by 
any other motive than zeal for the improvement of the 
University. 

It is to be noted — ^as bearing upon the question of the 
adequacy of the reasons for the resignations of professors — 
that the pertinency of all the grounds for dismissal given by 
the President was apparently affirmed by the Board of 
Regents in its ''Public Statement" of March 17. It is true 
that the Board gave as its actual reason for sustaining the 
recommendations, not the charges upon which they were 
based, but the allegation that there was "such a serious 
breach between the President on one side, and Dr. Knowl- 
ton and Professor Wise on the other, that one or the other 
must go." (This allegation the Committee will examine 
hereafter). But the Board at the same time made it clear 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 17 

that, apart from this consideration, "it would, were it 
necessary, adopt the President's recommendations on the 
above grounds alone," — i.e., on the grounds given by the 
President himself.* And in vindication of the legitimacy of 
dismissal upon such grounds as these, the Board presented 
in its "Public Statement" a (to the Committee) novel con- 
ception of the meaning of "freedom of speech." The pas- 
sage is of sufficient interest to quote at length: 

It is argued to the Board that professors and instructors should 
have the right of free thought, free speech, and free action. This 
cannot be and is not questioned. The Board, however, has the 
same rights. These privileges are reciprocal. When the rights 
of the two clash, then it is for the Board to determine which is 
right and which course serves, or is inimical to, the best interests 
of the University. Some one must have the right and respon- 
sibihty to decide such matters, and the law has vested it in the 
Board. Professor Wise, for instance, has seen fit to belittle the 
University, and to speak in an uncomplimentary way about the 
administration. That is his privilege. It is also the right and 
privilege of the President and Board to say that his course is 
wrong and refuse longer to employ him. Professor Wise may 
then go to another institution and State where his views and those 
of the governing board may coincide, if there is any place where 
an employe is permitted to belittle the institution that employs 
him and to criticize its management unjustly. 

What has just been said applies also to Dr. Knowlton, who 
has seen fit to speak very disrespectfully, if not insultingly, of 
the Chairman of the Board of Regents. From his standpoint, 
this doubtless means that he has exercised his inalienable rights 
of freje thought, free speech and free action. But the President 
and the Board also have an equal right to free thought, free 
speech and free action, with the result that the President and 
Board do not agree with Dr. Knowlton 's sentiments; he may 
hereafter find an institution and State where similar sentiments 
against the presiding ofiicer of the governing board may be ap- 
proved. If so, that is where he belongs .f 

* "Public Statement," page 4. 

t "Public Statement," pp. 9-10. The Board later adds: "At the same 
time the President and Board concede to professors and instructors the per- 
fect right and freedom to make healthy and judicious criticism of the 



18 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

It is evident from this passage that the "freedom of 
speech" (even in private conversation) assured to teachers 
in the University of Utah is officially defined as freedom to 
express sentiments in agreement with those of the President 
and the Regents, or to seek employment elsewhere. The 
Committee is unable to feel surprise that the publication of 
this ''Statement" was immediately followed by the resigna- 
tion of a mmiber of members of the faculty. 

3. Procedure in Dismissal. From the question of the 
nature of the grounds for dismissal the Committee turns to 
examine the procedure followed by officers of this University 
in making dismissals; and, in particular, to inquire whether 
teachers in the institution are guaranteed a fair trial 
before removal upon charges. 

(a) The Committee has laid before the Board of Re- 
gents, first, the general question whether the right to a 
hearing before dismissal is recognized in the case of profes- 
sors in the University of Utah. The answers of the ma- 
jority and the minority of the Board are subjoined. 

Question: Is it the understanding of the Regents that they 
may at any time refuse to reappoint a professor, without specific 
charges against him and without a hearing? 

Answer (Majority reply): Yes. However, we deem it better to 
state the facts and practice ... In practice, reasons have 
been uniformly given the person affected, and a hearing, if one 
were desired, except, as we now recall, in the case of one person 
only, as to whom it was considered by the Board to be for the best 
interests of the University and of the professor concerned not to 
grant a hearing. 

Board of Regents, the President, the Faculty, the University and every- 
thing connected with or related to its management, and the President and 
Board retain the same right and freedom to think and act within their 
respective spheres." The Committee dofes not find in this sentence any- 
thing which alters or modifies the practical import of the passage above 
cited, inasmuch as the "freedom to act within its sphere," reserved to the 
Board, appears to be that indicated in the previous passage — freedom to 
discuss professors "with whose sentiments the President and Board do not 
agree." 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 19 

Answer (Minority reply): The Board of Regents has taken the 
position that it may at any time refuse to reappoint a professor 
without receiving specific charges against him and without a hear- 
ing. 

The minority members add that they do not concur in 
this policy. Both answers indicate that the right of pro- 
fessors to a hearing before dismissal is not recognized in 
principle in this University. It is not clear whether the 
statement of the majority answer as to the past practice 
in the matter is intended by the Board to cover the cases 
recently brought before it. The Board, however, insists, 
in the course of its answers to other questions, that Messrs. 
Knowlton and Wise ''were afforded an opportunity to be 
heard." 

(b) Before considering the question whether the privilege 
of a fair trial upon the changes was, in fact, offered the pro- 
fessors accused, the Committee notes the procedure employed 
by the President, and also by the Board, in the matter 
of the verification of the principal and only significant charge 
against Professor Knowlton — that of "working against the 
administration." The Committee finds it to be established 
by the evidence,* and, indeed, not denied by the representa- 
tives of the University administration, that President Kings- 
bury accepted as true, without investigation, the secret state- 
ments of private informants ; that he at no time permitted the 
professor concerned to know the names of his accusers or the 
nature of the specific acts of which he was accused ; that the 
President laid the charge before the Regents, and also pub- 
lished it, after receiving an absolute denial of the truth of it 
from Dr. Knowlton, and without examining the other evi- 
dence offered him as proof of the falsity of the charge; and 
that the Board of Regents adopted the President's recom- 
mendation for the dismissal of this professor, without know- 
ing the source of the principal accusation against him or 

* Written statements and replies to questions by Professor Knowlton, 
oral statement of a member of the Board of Regents, written reply of 
minority of Board, cited below. 



20 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

the nature of the evidence upon which it was based. It is 
manifest, therefore, that whatever the facts as to the truth 
of this charge against Professor Knowlton, neither the Presi- 
dent nor the Board took any just and adequate measures to 
ascertain whether or not it was true. 

(c) So far as the Board is concerned, it explains this 
procedure on the ground that the dismissals were not di- 
rectly based upon the charges, but upon the fact that there 
existed an ''irreparable breach" between the President and 
the professors whose dismissal he recommended; and that, 
therefore, the Board had no occasion to inquire as to the 
character of the evidence behind the President's charges, or 
even as to the pertinency of those charges as grounds for 
dismissal. The Board informs this Committee that: 

The President stated to the Regents and to a Committee prior 
to the meeting of March 17, 1915, that if the Board considered it 
best to retain Dr. Knowlton and Associate Professor Wise, he, 
President Kingsbury, would submit his resignation; that he would 
not remain as President with Dr. Knowlton and Professor Wise, 
or either of them, on the instructing force. At the meeting of 
the Regents on March 17, this status of affairs was known by the 
Board. 

In such circumstances, the Board has publicly declared, 
''it is not concerned with the question who is right and who 
is wrong in this disagreement, but is concerned only with the 
question as to whose services it considers the more valuable 
to the University."* 

The Board, being of the opinion that Dr. Kingsbury's serv- 
ices were more valuable than those of Messrs. Knowlton 
and Wise, and being now presumably of the opinion that his 
services are more valuable than those of the seventeen re- 
signing professors and instructors, based its decision upon 
this consideration. It observes: 

Any state, rehgious, business or other organization, must have 
and preserve a practical working organization, or fail; when fric- 

* Letter to the Salt Lake City Federation of Women's Clubs, April 7, 
1915. 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 21 

tion is developed to a serious and irreparable point it must be 
eradicated. Investigations to ascertain whether the superior 
officer or a subordinate is most to blame do not stop friction. In 
such cases the only practicable course is to remove such causes of 
the friction as are deemed least valuable to the work of the organ- 
ization.* 

Upon the position thus assumed by the Board, the Com- 
mittee makes two observations. In the first place, if the 
Board felt absolved by the considerations it mentions from 
the obligation to make any genuine inquiry into the truth of 
the charges, it should not have permitted those charges to be 
laid before it; still less should it have published them, and 
have published them in such a way as to lead the public to 
suppose that the Board believed, and had reason to believe, 
them to be substantiated. The Board did, however, print 
these charges in its ''Public Statement" of March 17; and it 
accompanied them with the following comment: 

As to Dr. Knowlton and Professor Wise, the members of the 
Board do not know of their own knowledge as to the truth of all 
the facts given by the President as reasons why these gentlemen 
were not renominated. We believe, however, from the statements 
and facts submitted to us, that the President's reasons are well 
founded; and were it necessary the Board would adopt the Pres- 
ident's recommendations on the above grounds alone. 

It was clearly incumbent upon the Board if, as was the 
case, it had taken no evidence, f and had nothing resembling 
proof, as to the truth of the charge of disloyalty against 
Professor Knowlton, to state the fact without equivocation. 
The Board not only failed to do this in its "Public State- 
ment," but in its (majority) reply of April 17 to the in- 
quiries of this Committee, it answers in the affirmative the 
question: "Does the Board of Regents still maintain the 

* "Public Statement," page 5. 

t Reply of Minority of Board of Regents: "Question: Has the Board 
taken evidence as to the truth of this charge (that Professor Knowlton had 
worked against the administration)? Answer: The Board has not taken 
evidence." 



22 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

charge that Dr. Knowlton had worked against the adminis- 
tration?" 

The Committee further notes that the Board grounds its 
acceptance of the President's recommendations upon a gen- 
eral rule of policy, viz.: that when serious "friction" arises 
between university officials and teachers, the governing 
body should consider only the past and the inferential 
future value to the institution of the services of the persons 
concerned, and should not consider the question ''who is 
right and who is wrong in the disagreement." The func- 
tionary of superior value should be retained, the others re- 
moved. Though this rule doubtless has some plausibility, 
and sometimes appears to make for efficiency, it seems to the 
Committee, as a principle to be followed in University ad- 
ministration, to be wholly inadmissible. The Committee 
can construe the Board's repeated public enunciation of this 
principle only as an announcement that considerations of 
equity were not taken account of, at the time of the dismis- 
sals of March 17, and that, so long as the Board adheres to 
this principle, such considerations will not be taken account 
of, in cases involving the relations of the President of the 
University and the faculty. Such a rule of action on the 
part of a governing board contains the potency of grave 
injury to the institution under its control, not less than of 
grave injustice to individuals; for a publicly proclaimed in- 
difference of the governing body to the question of justice 
as between individuals is sure to cause damaging resent- 
ments and a loss of public confidence. Just how effective 
this rule may be, as a means of ''preserving a practical work- 
ing organization," is well illustrated by the present condition 
of the University of Utah. In a letter published April 14, 
1915, the Board has conceded that, through the resignations 
resulting largely from its adherence to this rule, the Uni- 
versity has been deprived of the services of a number of 
^' competent men whose positions it may possibly be difficult 
to fill;" and it remarks that the Regents are "not so blind 
as to believe that the University will not suffer because of 
this agitation." The University and the educational in- 
terests of Utah have unquestionably already suffered greatly 



KEPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 23 

from the consequences of the Regents' action on March 17. 
These unhappy consequences are chiefly due to the fact 
that the pohcy of disregarding considerations of equity, 
and of heeding only considerations of 'efficiency/* does not 
in the long run tend to the efficient working of any organiza- 
tion of human beings. It is certain to engender far more 
'friction' than it allays; it is not permanently effective even 
in the management of workshops or business houses. Ap- 
plied in the government of universities, it is the sure 
beginning of disaster. 

(d) The above-mentioned principle, repeatedly enunci- 
ated by the Board, evidently implies that an investigation 
into the truth of the charges against Messrs. Knowlton and 
Wise would have been irrelevant to the consideration upon 
which the Board based its action. The Board nevertheless 
(as already mentioned) declares in its statements to this 
Committee that the opportunity of having an investigation 
was offered these professors, and was rejected by them. The 
Board, for example, was asked the following question: 
''Has it hitherto been the policy of the Board of Regents 
usually to sustain recommendations of the President with- 
out inquiry, even when these recommendations involve 
charges against professors?" The Board repUes: 

No, not even in one instance (except as above noted), f has the 
policy suggested in this question been followed. 

* It would appear, indeed, that the Board was prepared to sacrifice 
even the educational efficiency of the teaching staff, in order to retain the 
President and secure a faculty in harmony with him. The following is an 
extract from an address by Regent Van Cott before the Commercial Club 
of Salt Lake City: "There is an irreparable breach between the President 
and the resigned members of the Faculty of the University. In order to 
secure the best results in the work of the institution, it is necessary that 
there be perfect harmony between the President and the Faculty. Other- 
wise, there is too much friction. Now the President has been a faithful 
and valuable servant of the University for twenty years, and it is not advis- 
able to part with his services. It is better to secure mediocre instructors 
and secure harmony than to get the best and most efficient professors and 
not secure harmony." 

t The exception referred to is, as the context shows, not the case of 
Professor Knowlton or of Professor Wise, but one occurring in a previous 
year. 



24 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

In reply to another question the Board remarks: "We 
cannot permit you to infer that charges against professors 
have not heretofore been investigated." And it elsewhere 
reiterates that "Dr. Knowlton and Associate Professor Wise 
were given an opportunity to be heard." 

The Committe finds that, in the physiological sense of the 
word ''heard," the accused professors were, in fact, given an 
opportunity to be heard. Dr. Knowlton, for example, was 
apprised in writing of the charges against him, and was noti- 
fied to appear before the Board at its meeting of March 17. 
He on that date sent a letter to the President which was 
read to the Board at its meeting. The essential parts of 
this letter are here reproduced: 

You write, "I am convinced that you have worked against the 
administration of the University." I assume that this has the 
same meaning as your statement made in our conversation of 
March 1, when you said, "I think you have been working against 
me." That is, I understand this charge to involve a charge of 
personal loyalty rather than of loyalty to the University. My 
position upon this point is, I think, made sufficiently clear in my 
letter to you dated March 1, and delivered in person on that date. 
If the charge that I have, by underhanded means, sought to un- 
dermine your influence and secure your removal as president of 
the University, is true, then your action is fully justified. This 
raises a question of fact to be determined by evidence. On March 
1, 1 gave you a letter referring you to several men of good stand- 
ing in Salt Lake City, who were in a position to speak from first 
hand knowledge of my attitude toward you. On March 3 you 
stated in reply to my inquiry that you had not sought information 
from any of these men, and I have reason to believe that you have 
not done so, up to the present time, although you have, as I am 
informed, been in communication with at least two of these men 
on other matters. 

Now, Mr. President, I have made and do make the most posi- 
tive and unqualified assertions of the falsity of any charges of 
disloyalty either to yourself or to the University, and I have 
offered you positive proof that on certain occasions I have been 
your loyal supporter and defender. You have, in effect, refused 
to investigate the proof offered. Therefore, if my dismissal is to 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 25 

be based upon this charge of disloyalty, I ask that the Board of 
Regents make a full and searching public investigation for the 
purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of this charge. 

With regard to the other charges against him, Mr. 
Knowlton wrote : 

I am not greatly concerned with the truth or falsity of this 
charge. I believe that in such a private conversation I had a 
perfect right to express my opinion as to the fitness or unfitness 
of the Chairman of the Board of Regents for his position. If you, 
Mr. President, and the Board of Regents wish to put my dismissal 
upon the ground that a member of the faculty is denied the right 
of freedom of speech, even in private conversation, I am most 
certainly willing that you should do so. I, for one, should not 
care to remain as a member of the faculty where such a curtail- 
ment of personal rights existed. It follows that if the Board of 
Regents cares to accept thi^ as a material reason for your actions 
it will be altogether unnecessary for them to give me any hearing 
upon the matter. 

Regarding your verbal invitation to me to be within call of the 
Regents at their meeting tonight, allow me to make the following 
statement: The above letter outlines my position and desires. I 
shall welcome the most careful and searching public investigation 
of any specific charges upon the matter of disloyalty, but I do not 
see that any good could come of my meeting the Board under 
conditions such as would exist tonight. Whenever the Board is 
ready to take evidence in the matter, I shall be glad to arrange 
for the presentation of such evidence in my behalf; until that 
time I can see no good end to be gained by such a meeting as you 
suggest.* 

* Oral statements of Professor Knowlton indicate that his reason for 
taking this position was a fear that, if he appeared before the Board under 
the conditions proposed {i.e., without any assurance of an opportunity to 
present evidence and secure a thorough investigation) he would thereby 
prejudice his claim to such an investigation. A similar position was 
adopted by Professor Wise. The Committee takes occasion to say that J 
Mr. Knowlton, in refusing to recognize the authority of the Board to take 
cognizance of his private expressions of opinion concerning the qualifica- 
tions of the Chairman of the Board, seems to the Committee to have done 
a service both to his profession and to the interests of the University of 
Utah. 



26 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

The Committee can not regard the privilege of a "hear- 
ing" thus offered Professor Knowlton as equivalent to an 
assurance of a genuine and thorough investigation into the 
charges. It is, indeed, compelled by the Board's public 
declarations, and by its replies to certain questions pro- 
pounded by the Committee, to conclude that the Board was 
on March 17 committed to a policy which deprived such an 
investigation of pertinency to the principle by which the 
Board's action was determined; and that, in fact, the Board 
formally refused an investigation, in the proper sense of 
that term. For, in its ''Public Statement" of March 17, 
the Board defined its position in the following terms: 

It is not necessary for the Board to rest its decision as to Dr. 
Knowlton and Professor Wise upon the above reasons [i.e., the 
charges], because the Board knows that there is such a serious 
breach between the President on the one side, and Dr. Knowlton 
and Professor Wise on the other, that one or the other must go. 
We therefore base our decision on that point. No public hear- 
ing, no judicial or other investigation, can change or obviate the 
fact that there is a serious and irreparable breach.* 

Later in its "Public Statement" the Board, replying to a 
petition received from the Alumni Association, declares that 
'4t refuses to be forced into a public or any investigation by 
the resolution" adopted by the alumni at their meeting. 
The Committee feels compelled to suppose that when the 
Board thus officially expressed itself on March 17, it cor- 
rectly defined its own attitude on that date toward the 
requests for an investigation into the cases of the accused 
professors. The expressions then used are clearly irrecon- 
cilable with the contention that the Board was at that time 
prepared to carry out a genuine investigation into the truth 
of the President's charges and the adequacy of his reasons 

* "Public Statement," page 4. The breach, it is well to make clear, 
consisted solely in the President's belief in the charges against Messrs. 
Knowlton and Wise, and his consequent determination to secure the re- 
moval of these teachers. There was, apart from the charges, no personal 
quarrel between the President and the two professors. 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 27 

for his reconunendations. The Board, moreover, on April 
17, made the subjoined reply to the following question: 

Question: Is the Board at the present time willing itself to 
investigate the charges against Professors Knowlton and Wise? 

Answer: No, not in view of the attitude taken by the Board 
regarding the existing breach between President Kingsbury and 
Professors Knowlton and Wise. 

This breach, however, by the Board's statements, existed 
on March 17, and the Board's ''attitude regarding this 
breach" was the same at that time as at the time the above 
reply was formulated. It is manifest, therefore, that the 
Board had then the same reason for refusing an investigation 
that it had subsequently; and that in fact it did not then 
make any genuinely judicial inquiry into the charges, and 
that it still refuses to make such an inquiry.* 

It appears clear to the Committee that in any university 
in which the principles and procedure of the President and 
governing board, in relation to dismissals and to the making 
and publishing of charges against professors, are of the sort 
shown by the foregoing analysis, teachers have no substan- 
tial security against the most serious injustice. 

4. Question of Truth of Principal Charge. It remains for 
the Committee to inquire as to the truth of the only one 
among the four charges which it is able to look upon as seri- 

* Since the above was written, the Committee has received from the 
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents a copy of 
an article by him in the Salt Lake Tribune (May 27, 1915) which explicitly 
states that an investigation was denied the professors dismissed. Mr. 
Young writes: "Mr. Kingsbury, upon information deemed satisfactory to 
himself, believed that Messrs. Knowlton and Wise were disloyal to him, 
and ergo, he being the duly constituted head of the school, to the univer- 
sity itself. Believing that, he determined not to recommend their re-em- 
ployment and so informed them. They demanded reasons, which he out- 
lined, and an investigation, which he denied. The Regents, impressed, 
through long years of acquaintanceship with Dr. Kingsbury's fundamental 
conservatism and square-dealing, decided to sustain his action and to deny 
an investigation, on the doctor's assurance that the board must choose 
between him and the released professors." 



28 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OP UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

ous, the one which alone (as will appear later) the Board 
itself now appears to regard as a legitimate ground for dis- 
missal. This, as has been mentioned, is the charge of hav- 
ing ''worked against the administration." Whether this is 
a grave accusation or otherwise depends upon its meaning; 
the terms in which it is couched are extremely vague. The 
Committee has therefore asked the Board of Regents the 
question: ''What specific acts, or modes of action, are by 
the above expression charged against Professor Knowlton?" 
For answer the Board has referred the Committee to the 
replies of President Kingsbury. The Committee is, how- 
ever, unable to find among Dr. Kingsbury's rephes any 
answer of the specific sort desired. 

In answer to the question, "What is the nature of the 
evidence upon which this charge is based?" Dr. Kings- 
bury makes the following statement : 

Answer: No. Not in view of the attitude taken by the Board 
regarding the existing breach between President Kingsbury and 
Professors Knowlton and Wise. 

Dr. Knowlton was told that the President was convinced that 
he (Dr. Knowlton) was working against the administration and 
that he (Dr. Knowlton) had spoken very disrespectfully of the 
Chairman of the Board of Regents. Soon after this statement 
was made to Dr. Knowlton, many things occurred which added 
to the conviction of the President that his friends who had told 
him that Dr. Knowlton was working against him had told the 
truth. It took more than a year for the President to become 
convinced that his friends had made no mistake in regard to what 
they had told him. This he fully realized when the efforts being 
made to remove him culminated in the Board of Regents. The 
following is a quotation from the letter of a resigning member of 
the Faculty: "I have been long enough at the University of Utah 
to realize that your suspicions of disloyalty are not unfounded. 
There are things which cannot be substantiated by legal proofs 
and still they exist. Whoever has had ears to hear and eyes to 
see knows that there have been more or less covert aspirations 
for the President's chair. As my interest has been all centered 
on my own professional work, I have preferred to maintain an 
attitude of reserve. But now I do not hesitate to say that, in my 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 29 

opinion, the President's position is too important to be coveted. 
Your successor, Mr. President, if he is to take up your mantle 
worthily, should be a man disinterested in all this subtle agitation. 

This reply appears to contain three assertions or direct 
implications: that an attempt has been made in the Board 
of Regents to remove President Kingsbury; that this at- 
tempt resulted from, or was connected with, efforts to secure 
his removal made by one or more members of the Faculty; 
and that Dr. Knowlton was active in this effort. The fact 
that Dr. Knowlton alone was dismissed on this ground 
would seem to imply the further charge that he was a 
leader in the movement. 

For the assertions relating to Dr. Kingsbury personally, 
it is to be observed that Dr. Kingsbury offers nothing in 
the nature of evidence beyond his personal belief, and the 
statement that ''friends" (unnamed, and unspecified as to 
number) made these assertions. Representatives of the 
University administration subsequently informed the Com- 
mittee that if given some additional time they hoped to be 
able to induce these confidential informants of the President 
to testify over their own names. Though the Committee 
had already for some weeks been seeking to elicit this evi- 
dence, it was unwilling to reach a decision upon the point 
until every reasonable opportunity had been given for the 
production of all available testimony. The Committee, has 
therefore, deferred for six weeks the completion and publi- 
cation of this report. Up to the time of its preparation for 
the press, no evidence from the anonymous accusers of Pro- 
fessor Knowlton has been forthcoming. 

Dr. Knowlton, on the other hand, lays before the Com- 
mittee as evidence, first, his personal affidavit, as follows : 

State of Utah 1 

County of Salt Lake J 

A. A. Knowlton, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and 
says, That since Sept., 1909, he has held the position of Associate 
Professor of Physics at the University of Utah; that during that 
time he has always been a loyal supporter of President J. T. 



30 AMEEICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

Kingsbury; that he has never entered into any plot or conspiracy 
against the said J. T. Kingsbury and that he has never known of 
the existence of any such plot or conspiracy; that, on the contrary, 
he has on several occasions defended the said J. T. Kingsbury 
against the criticism of others and has frequently expressed a 
favorable opinion of the past services of the said J. T. Kingsbury 
to the University of Utah; that until the events subsequent to 
Feb. 25, 1915, affiant verily believed that the said J. T. Kingsbury 
was well fitted to perform the duties of President of the Univer- 
sity of Utah, and that the said J. T. Kingsbury was a desirable 
man for the position which he held; this opinion affiant frequently 
expressed and he believes it to have been well known to many 
people. 

Affiant further says that he has no knowledge of any specific 
charge of disloyalty upon his part toward the said J. T. Kings- 
bury; that the said J. T. Kingsbury has refused either to make 
any specific charges or to confront affiant with those responsible 
for the general charge that affiant has been "working against 
the administration," This general charge affiant declares to be 
wholly untrue. 

(Signed) A. A. Knowlton. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of April, 1915. 

A. M, Cheney 
Notary Public. 

Dr. Knowlton also transmits to the Committee formal 
statements from four other persons relating to his attitude 
towards the President of the University; two of these are ap- 
pended, the others, for the sake of brevity, being summarized : 

(a) To Whom it may Concern: 

In the Physical Science building of the University of Utah, Pro- 
fessor Knowlton has occupied as his office room 31, while I have 
occupied as my office room 32. These rooms are adjacent with 
a door connecting them. This has resulted in Mr. Knowlton and 
myself being, by chance, very closely associated. We have en- 
gaged in many conversations and on many subjects. I do not 
recall that in any conversation that we have had, has Mr. Knowlton 
ever expressed any disloyalty toward the Executive of the Univer- 
sity or the Regents of the University. 

(Signed) E. H. Becksteand, 
Professor of Mechanical Engineering. 



EEPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 31 

(b) Be it known that I, W. R. Argyle, am a senior of the 
University of Utah, a member of the A. F. Fraternity, have been 
a stock-room assistant for two years in the Department of Physics, 
and am majoring in Physics. On several occasions I have talked 
confidentially with Dr. Knowlton on student affairs. Dr. Knowl- 
ton has as frequently been a guest at the fraternity house, and on 
no occasions has Dr. Knowlton spoken in such a way as to tend to 
lessen the respect of the students for the President. On the con- 
trary he has stood by him and has encouraged us to do the same. 
This was most forcefully brought to my attention when the fol- 
lowing incident happened: Last fall the A. F. Fraternity were 
entertaining two Phi Delta boys from California in the hope of 
gaining their help in obtaining a charter in their national frater- 
nity. During their visit they had an interview with President 
Kingsbury, at which time the latter displayed considerable ignor- 
ance concerning the fraternity situation at Utah. I related to 
Dr. Knowlton the conversation, and I rather resented the fact 
that our President showed such ignorance concerning fraternities 
here. Dr. Knowlton took issue with me and expressed himself 
by saying that the President was entirely excusable for such mis- 
takes, and that his worth to our school along other lines was of 
such importance that this incident meant but little. He expressed 
the wish at that time that the fellows might get behind the Pres- 
ident and support him better than they were. 

W. R. Argyle. 
Subscribed and sworn before me this 13th day of April, 1915. 

R. H. Forsyth, 
Notary Public. 

(c) James H. Wolfe, a member of the Athenian Club of Salt 
Lake City, of which Dr. Knowlton is also a member, states upon 
oath that Dr. Knowlton by request of the Committee on Pro- 
gramme addressed the Club on January 8, 1915, on the subject 
of ''The University of Utah;" that this address "was highly com- 
mendable to the work and progress of the institution, and to the 
pohcy and ability of Dr. J. T. Kingsbury;" and that other members 
of the Club then present remarked upon the loyalty and fairness 
of Dr. Knowlton. 

(d) John Jensen deposes that he was present at a banquet 
given in honor of the athletes of the University of Utah during 
the past winter, and sat at a table with Dr. Knowlton and a 



32 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

number of alumni. Mr. Jensen further deposes that during the 
evening the question of the fitness of Dr. Kingsbury for the 
presidency of the University of Utah came up for discussion. 
Several of those at the table "expressed the conviction that Dr. 
Kingsbury was no longer the right person for the place, and voiced 
the belief that his retirement and the securing of the services of 
some educator of recognized standing would result in the greater 
development of the University of Utah. During the whole of 
this discussion not one word of criticism of President Kingsbury 
came from Dr. Knowlton. He was the only man at the table 
who dissented from the opinion expressed." 

Professor Knowlton's affidavit and an indication of the 
nature of the supporting testimony have been commmuni- 
cated to President Kingsbury and the Regents, and they 
have been invited to submit evidence in rebuttal if they 
desired to do so. No such evidence has been received up to 
the time of the preparation of this report. 

The Committee, however, desiring to do all in its power 
to secure such evidence, if it existed, on May 17, addressed 
a letter to all the non-resigning professors of the University 
of Utah Faculty, asking, among other questions, the fol- 
lowing : 

Have you any first-hand knowledge as to the connection of 
Professor Knowlton with any movement within the Faculty to 
displace President Kingsbury? 

Fifteen out of the twenty-one professors to whom this 
letter was sent replied; all answered this question definitely 
in the negative. Three replied more fully as follows : 

(a) I have no first-hand knowledge, or any other kind of 
knowledge or belief, that Dr. Knowlton was connected with a 
movement to replace President Kingsbury. Dr. Knowlton has 
been one of our most esteemed Faculty members. . . His 
demeanor in the performance of his official and social duties has 
been exceptionally exemplary, with my knowledge. 

(b) No! On the contrary, Dr. Knowlton has in my presence 
defended Dr. Kingsbury. 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 33 

(c) No. On the other hand, I have every reason for believing 
that Professor Knowlton has been a warm supporter of the Admin- 
istration and of President Kingsbury. 

Two professors speak of having heard at second-hand 
that Professor Knowlton was involved in a movement 
against the President. One of these, Professor J. H. Paul, 
states: 

Some six months before February, 1915, I was informed by a 
man in whom I have great confidence, that there was a movement 
afoot to displace President Kingsbury. He named Professors 
Knowlton and Ebaugh, and said there were others. I did not 
mention this to any one until after the trouble arose at the Uni- 
versity. When professors began to resign, I tried to get from my 
informant the details of this movement, but he has not to this 
time (May 22) answered my inquiries. 

The informant* here referred to is not a member of the 
University faculty. Professor W. C. Ebaugh has been noti- 
fied by the Committee of the inclusion of his name in the 
^statement of Professor Paul's informant. He replies by 
telegraph: "Your letter of May 29 contains matter veri- 
tably new to me. The statement connecting me with any 
person or persons as mentioned, or with any movement 
like that under discussion, is unqualifiedly false." The 
Committee has received through Dean Cummings a tele- 
graphic communication, signed by himself and all the re- 
signing professors whom he was at time of sending able to 
reach — Messrs. Holman, Mattill, Peterson and Vorhies — 
denying knowledge of any effort, before March, 1915, 
among any faculty members, for the removal of the Presi- 
dent. Professor Wise has testified in the same sense. Thus, 
out of thirty-three professors and associate professors, re- 
plies have been received from twenty-one in addition to Dr. 
Knowlton himself, all but seven being members of the fac- 
ulty who have not resigned; none have first-hand knowl- 

* The Committee knows the name of the person in question, but has 
thus far been given it only upon condition that it be not made public. The 
Committee has attempted to induce this person to testify, without success. 



34 AMEKICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

edge of any "working against the administration" on the 
part of Professor Knowlton. The Committee is, in short, 
unable to find, or to hear of, a single member of the Uni- 
versity Faculty who is personally cognizant of any act or 
expression of Dr. Knowlton's which gives color to the charge 
made against him by the President; while it has testimony 
from a number of witnesses to the effect that Dr. Knowlton 
was a constant and loyal supporter of the President. 

It has, however, been intimated by certain persons that 
Professor Knowlton had encouraged a student organization 
known as the A. F. Fraternity in acts of hostility against 
President Kingsbury. The Committee has brought this 
intimation to the knowledge of officers of the fraternity, and 
has received from its President the following affidavit : 

State of Utah, 1 

County of Salt Lake] 

La Mar Nelson, being first duly sworn according to law, deposes 
and says : 

That he is a student of the University of Utah and President 
of the A. F. Fraternity; that he is acquainted with the individual 
members of the said Fraternity and their attitude in the recent 
University controversy; that the A. F. Fraternity has at no time 
made an effort to secure the removal of President Kingsbury; that 
deponent has inquired among the individual members of the 
Fraternity and that they have declared to him, and deponent 
himself declares of his own knowledge, that Dr. Knowlton of the 
University of Utah has at no time and upon no occasion encour- 
aged the members of the A. F. Fraternity to work against Presi- 
dent Kingsbury; that Dr. Knowlton is in no way connected with 
the A. F. Fraternity, but on the contrary is a member of a rival 
fraternity in the University of Utah; that the members of the A. 
F. Fraternity disclaim all knowledge of and connection with any 
effort on the part of Dr. Knowlton to work against President 
Kingsbury; that until Dr. Knowlton's dismissal many of the mem- 
bers of the A. F. Fraternity were not even acquainted with Dr. 
Knowlton; that the individual members of the A. F, Fraternity 
are divided in their opinions with regard to the merits of the 
University diflSculty; that some members of the Fraternity have 
supported the Administration, while some members have felt that 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 35 

the policy of the Administration was wrong; that it is unfair, un- 
just and untrue to say that the A. F. Fraternity has worked 
against President Kingsbury, 

La Mar Nelson. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of June, A. D., 1915. 
Frank E. Holman. 
Notary Public. 

My commission expires March 12, 1916. 

Finally, the Committee has received statements in regard 
to this charge from members of the Board of Regents. The 
minority of the Board (Messrs. W. W. Armstrong, Ernest 
Bamberger and G. C. Whitmore) declare, in their reply of 
April 16: 

On the facts so far eUcited, the charge against Professor Knowl- 
ton, i.e., that he had "worked against the administration," has 
not been proven, and should not be maintained by the Board of 
Regents. 

The Committee understands that one or more other 
members of the Board share this view but are unwilling to 
be quoted. 

This statement of the Regents not only shows that Presi- 
dent Kingsbury has, even up to May 27, never laid before the 
Regents anything resembling evidence of his charge against 
Professor Knowlton; it also constitutes first-hand testimony 
to the fact that Professor Knowlton was not in any degree 
responsible for a motion made in the Board of Regents for 
the retirement of the President, and supported, as the Com- 
mittee understands, by some of the Regents mentioned. 

The Committee, therefore, in view of all the foregoing 
testimony, finds that this charge against Professor Knowl- 
ton is wholly unsupported by evidence, beyond the asser- 
tions, reported at second-hand, of one or more persons who 
now refuse to testify or to permit their names to be divulged; 
that the charge is in conflict with the sworn statement of 
Professor Knowlton himself, and with similar statements 
from a number of other witnesses; and that it is irreconcil- 
able with the fact that no member of the Faculty has been 



36 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

found who knows, of his own knowledge, of any activity 
against the President of the University on the part of the 
professor accused. 

The Committee has thought it advisable, also, to inquire 
fully into the question whether there was a movement on 
the part of any other members of the faculty to secure the 
retirement of President Kingsbury. The President's state- 
ment cited above intimates that ''efforts" to this end had 
been made by professors. Upon receipt of this statement, 
the secretary of the association telegraphed Dean Cum- 
mings, asking from him, from Dean Holman, and from any 
full professors accessible, immediate answers to the follow- 
ing questions : 

First, did you ever speak to any other professors before March 
in favor of effort to secure the President's removal? Second, did 
you ever suggest to any Regent the desirabliity of his removal? 
Third, do you know of efforts before March among any Faculty 
members, for the President's removal? 

The reply, sent by Messrs. Cummings, Holman, Mattill, 
Merrill,* Peterson and Vorhies, answered all three ques- 
tions emphatically in the negative, and added: ''The first 
suggestion of removal of the President came from members 
of the Board of Regents." Dr. Knowlton also declares in 
his affidavit, and Messrs. Ebaugh and Wise in their state- 
ments that they have known of no faculty movement 
against the President. After postponement of the pubU- 
cation of this report was decided upon, the Committee sent 
to all of the non-resigning professors an inquiry upon the 
point, in the form of the following question: "Have you 
first-hand knowledge of any movement that existed within 
the faculty to displace President Kingsbury?" Of the 
fifteen replies received, all were in the negative. One 
writer states that after the announcement of the President's 
intention to recommend the dismissal of four members of 

* Prof. J. T. Merrill, one of the members of the Utah faculty who 
have not resigned. Dr. Merrill is dean of the School of Mines and professor 
of physics and electrical engineering. 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 37 

the faculty, one of his colleagues (who has since resigned) 
said to him: ''If enough of us get together and stick, we can 
force the President to retain Knowlton, or we can force him 
out, or we can ourselves get out with dignity and self-re- 
spect." As this incident occurred not before, but in con- 
sequence of, the President's recommendations, it is not 
germane to the question which the Committee is here con- 
sidering. One writer, Professor Bennion, mentions a piece 
of hearsay evidence as to the existence of opposition to the 
President among the Faculty: 

Early in February I was informed by a member of the Board of 
Regents, that an effort was being made to remove the President, 
and that a fellow-member of the Board had said that a majority 
of the Faculty was against the President. 

The Committee cannot attach importance to third-hand 
testimony of this kind; and the reported statement in any 
case was an expression of a belief as to the prevaiUng Fac- 
ulty opinion, and did not assert the existence of any conspir- 
acy or concerted movement against the President. The 
Committee concludes that there is no evidence deserving of 
consideration to show that any such movement existed; and 
that there is positive evidence that it did not exist. For it 
is scarcely conceivable that such a movement should have 
been going on without coining to the personal knowledge of 
any of the twenty-three professors, including four deans, 
from whom the Committee has received repUes. 

It would obviously have been much easier for President 
Kingsbury to ascertain all of these facts than it has been for 
the present Committee to do so; and it was manifestly his 
first duty to ascertain them, before giving credence to the 
statements of his secret informants. The conduct of the 
President in this matter appears so singular that it seems to 
the Committee necessary to mention, for the information 
of those unacquainted with general conditions at the Uni- 
versity of Utah, certain related circumstances which at 
the University appears to be matters of common knowledge. 
President Kingsbury — as is shown by passages already cited 



38 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

and by other evidence in the Comniittee's possession — had 
of late been unpopular with a large number of the students 
and alumni. Criticism of him in these circles, during the 
past year especially, is said to have been vigorous, wide- 
spread and unconcealed. Members of the Faculty in their 
intercourse with alumni, undergraduates, and townspeople, 
frequently encountered this sentiment unfavorable to the 
President. As the evidence heretofore given shows, Pro- 
fessor Knowlton as well as other members of the Faculty, 
in such situations, frequently defended the President against 
his critics. The feeling of the students and graduates, how- 
ever, found an echo in the Board of Regents; and as the 
Committee is informed, within the past year a motion look- 
ing to the President's retirement was made at a meeting of 
the Board. The motion was supported only by a small 
minority, but it is clear that at this time the President be- 
came apprehensive for the security of his own position. It 
was this situation which seemed to him to give significance 
to the assurance of his unnamed informants, that certain 
members of the Faculty were ' 'working against him," and 
that Professor Knowlton was a leader in this movement. 
The Committee finds that Dr. Kingsbury was led by these 
cii'cumstances into an unreasoning attitude of suspicion 
towards Professor Knowlton and towards others of the Fac- 
ulty; and in consequence of this attitude, his subsequent 
conduct, especially with respect to Professor Knowlton, 
was to a singular degree uncontrolled by considerations of 
fairness, by a sense of the obUgations imposed by the quasi- 
jildicial character of his office, or by the practical judgment 
properly to be expected in the head of an important educa- 
tional institution. 

5. Present Attitude of Board of Regents with Regard to Dis- 
missals. Since its meeting of March 17, the Board of Re- 
gents appears to have changed its opinion as to the legit- 
imacy of dismissing members of the Faculty upon the first 
three of the four grounds given by the President as reasons 
for his recommendations. The Board has been asked by 
the Committee, with respect to each of these three whether 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 39 

it regards that reason ''as among the proper grounds for 
terminating a professor's connection with the University." 
The reply, under date of April 16, was in each case negative.* 
The Board has as noted, also received through this Com- 
mittee a copy of the affidavit of Professor Knowlton, to- 
gether with an indication of the nature of the supporting 
evidence. In sending this affidavit, the Secretary of the 
Association wrote as follows : 

I conceive it to be my duty also to transmit to the Board the 
enclosed sworn statement from Professor Knowlton, in which he 
makes a categorical and sweeping denial of the only serious charge 
against him. If the Board still maintains this charge against Dr. 
Knowlton, it thereby also maintains against him an accusation of 
false swearing. It would, I think, greatly interest the Committee 
of the Association of University Professors to know whether, in 
these circumstances, the Board is disposed to maintain the charge. 
I am not myself able to se6 that the Board can justly avoid the 
alternative of either a public withdrawal of the charge, or a state- 
ment of the specific acts referred to by that charge, with a public 
presentation of sworn evidence in support of it. I cannot but feel 
confident that the Board will agree that no third course of action 
would be consistent with the principles upon which honorable 
men are accustomed to regulate their conduct in such matters. 

The Committee regrets to report that the Board has 
adopted, with respect to charge against Dr. Knowlton, 
neither of the alternatives suggested by the Secretary; and 
that it has, in spite of the change of view mentioned, refused 
to reopen the cases of the professors dismissed. The Com- 
mittee takes pleasure in recording, however, that Regents 
Armstrong, Bamberger, and Whitmore, have as individuals 
frankly and unequivocally expressed their disbehef in the ac- 
cusation of disloyalty brought against Professor Knowlton. 

* To the question: "Is it among the conditions of the tenure of office in 
the University of Utah, that expressions uncomplimentary to the adminis- 
tration be not employed even in private?" the majority reply was a qual- 
ified negative: "No, unless such conduct be offensively persisted in." 
The minority of the Board answers all three of these questions "emphat- 
ically in the negative." 



40 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

6. Summary of Findings. The findings of the Committee, 
SO far as they relate to the recent dismissals, may be briefly 
recapitulated as follows : 

(a) Of the four charges which were given by the President 
of the University as his reasons for recommending the dis- 
missal of professors, three specify no proper grounds for such 
action, and the fourth is without basis in fact. 

(b) The President of the University and the Chairman of 
the Board of Regents by their recent action virtually gave 
notice that the expression by a professor, in private conver- 
sation, of an unfavorable opinion of their qualifications for 
office would be a ground for dismissal. This action, unjus- 
tified in general, the Committee regards as peculiarly un- 
suitable in officials of a state university. 

(c) The governing body of the University has publicly 
declared that in cases of serious friction between officers and 
teachers of the University, it is not concerned to know 
''who is right and who is wrong in the disagreement," but 
only to secure harmony by eliminating from the University 
those whose services it believes to be relatively less valuable. 
This, in the light thrown upon its practical meaning by re- 
cent action of the Board, appears to the Committee equiva- 
lent to a formal announcement that considerations of equity 
have not been, and will not be, taken account of by the 
Board, in cases involving the relations of the President of 
the University and the Faculty. 

(d) The Board has, however, given two irreconcilable 
versions of its attitude on March 17 towards the request for 
a judicial investigation of the charges. The first version is 
that, in view of the Board's adoption of the last-mentioned 
principle, no investigation could alter the essential consid- 
eration upon which the Board based its action; and that, in 
fact, the Board ''refused to be forced into a public or any 
investigation." The other version is that an opportunity 
for an investigation was actually afforded the professors 
accused, and was rejected. The Committee finds that 
though the professors accused were invited to appear at a 
meeting of the Board, no properly judicial investigation 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 41 

into the truth of the charges has ever been made either by 
the President or by the Board of Regents. 

(e) The Board now appears to regard either two or three 
of the charges as ''not constituting proper grounds for ter- 
minating a professor's connection with the University." It 
has also received through this Cormnittee the sworn state- 
ment of the professor against whom the fourth charge was 
made, categorically denying the truth of the charge. The 
Board nevertheless refuses to withdraw this charge, to pre- 
sent evidence in support of it, or to reopen the cases of the 
professors against whom these four charges were brought. 

(f) The evidence shows that, under the present adminis- 
tration, unverified gossip, coming from persons unwilling to 
assume public responsibility for their statements, has played 
an unfortunate part in the affairs of the University of Utah; 
and that Professor Knowlton was dismissed without ever 
being permitted to know 'who were his accusers, in the case 
of the principal charge against him. 

(g) In its "Public Statement" issued on March 17 in ex- 
planation of the dismissals, the Board denied the limits of 
freedom of speech in the University in such a way as to jus- 
tify any member of the Faculty in resigning forthwith. 



II. RELATION OF FACULTY AND REGENTS 

One of the reasons assigned for their action by several of 
the resigning professors, is the fact that no consideration 
was given by the Board of Regents at their meeting on 
March 17, to the following communications from the 
Faculty : 

To the Honorable, the Board of Regents, 
The University of Utah, 
Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Deae Sirs and Madam: 

At a meeting in the Faculty room today (March 9), beginning 
at 4.10 p. m., to which all members of the Faculty had been in- 
vited and to which the President made a statement, the under- 
signed members passed the following resolution : 

Resolved, That, in view of the public agitation, it be the sense 
of this Faculty that a statement from the Board of Regents, 
assuring the pubhc that a hearing will be given each man affected 
adversely by the recent recommendations of the President, and 
that results of said hearing will be pubHshed, will greatly benefit 
the University. 

This petition was first adopted by a large majority of 
those attending, and to it the individual signatures of twenty 
ty-two members of the Faculty were attached. The peti- 
tion was transmitted to the Secretary of the Board of 
Regents accompanied by the following statement of Profes- 
sor Joseph Peterson, chairman of the Committee, having the 
petition in charge: 

I am authorized to state for most of those who signed this reso- 
lution—by an oversight the matter was not brought before ail- 
that the Faculty invites an investigation of its own members as to 
their loyalty and attitudes towards matters involving the welfare 
of the University. 

42 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 43 

The fact that this request of the Faculty not only was not 
granted, but was not in any way considered or acted upon, 
was, then, regarded by a number of the signers as showing 
that, in the words of Professor W. C. Ebaugh, the Regents 
were ''absolutely inaccessible to the Faculty." This condi- 
tion appeared to those professors to give absolute power of 
control over the Faculty, and over all educational policies, 
to one man, the President, who was under no obligation even 
to seek the advice of the Faculty before making to the Board 
the recommendations which that body, as a rule, adopted 
without inquiry. The Committee is further informed that 
on a previous occasion, in 1913, the Faculty had sent to the 
Regents a petition, asking, in view of certain incidents 
which had recently occurred, that the Regents consider the 
question of the tenure of office of professors, and the condi- 
tion of the University. The communication was as follows : 

University of Utah, 
Salt Lake City, October 28, 1913. 
To the Board of Regents of the University of Utah: 

I have the honor to transmit herewith, in behalf of the members 
of the Faculty whose signatures appear thereon, a communication 
to your honorable body, which was adopted after a series of meet- 
ings devoted to a consideration of the matters set forth in this 
paper. Extended and unrestrained discussion preceded the 
wording of the document, and the proceedings were characterized 
by temperate and detailed exposition of the duties and obligations 
of the teaching force to the institution. It may be unnecessary 
to add that there was no hostile or individual criticism during any 
of the meetings of members of the Board of Regents. An earnest 
desire for the welfare of the University was apparently the sole 
aim of those who participated. Yours with respect. 

(Signed) J. H. Paul, 
Secretary of the Meetings. 

October 13, 1913. 

The Board of Regents, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Gentlemen: Behoving that the remarkable growth and pros- 
perity of the University of Utah during the past decade has been 
due largely to the good understanding and friendly cooperation 



44 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

that have existed between the Board of Hegents and the Faculty, 
and fearing lest with the growth in numbers of the Faculty and the 
increasing demands of routine business upon the time of the Re- 
gents, these relations may become less satisfactory, we, the mem- 
bers of the Faculty, respectfully desire to call the attenton of the 
members of the Board of Regents to the following statement: 

We believe it to be the function of the Board of Regents, acting 
through the President of the University, to select as instructors 
and heads of departments the very best men available, and we 
believe that the men so selected should be held responsible in the 
highest degree for the successful organization and conduct of the 
work intrusted to them. We are of the opinion that the history 
of university education in this country shows conclusively that 
those institutions have been most useful where such responsibility 
has been united with the most perfect freedom on the part of the 
instructor and the greatest permanency in the tenure of his posi- 
tion; and that, on the contrary, those institutions in which the 
freedom of the instructor has been abridged or the tenure of office 
has been uncertain have been unable to attract to themselves 
men of the force and ability needed for the proper advancement of 
the schools concerned. We have been perturbed, therefore, be- 
cause of certain recent acts which appear to have infringed upon 
the proper freedom of the individual instructors and to have 
raised a question as to the security of the tenure of office, to wit : 

(1) The order concerning physical examinations was undoubt- 
edly well meant, and certainly no member of the University Faculty 
wishes to appear to be in opposition to any measure which will 
limit effectively the. spread of tuberculosis. However, the time 
at which this action was taken, the refusal to accept certificates 
from any but the designated physicians, the requirement that the 
fee for such prescribed examinations be paid by the individual, 
and the feeling that other, and perhaps more serious, sources of 
possible infection were being neglected, have combined to cause 
a very considerable feeling of dissatisfaction upon the part of a 
large number of the members of the Faculty. 

(2) The purpose of the regulation concerning the acceptance of 
a nomination for political office is not well understood. If it is 
intended merely as a safeguard against neglect of duties arising 
from such candidacy, it seems unnecessary. If it has any other 
purpose, it appears to many of the Faculty to constitute an in- 
fringement of the proper freedom of action of the individual. 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITi' OF UTAH 45 

(3) Members of the Faculty have been subjected to censure be- 
cause they had expressed views upon debatable questions which 
did not conform to those of some other persons. 

(4) We understand that a prominent member of the Faculty, 
whose work had attracted much favorable comment, has been re- 
moved from his position without being fully informed as to the 
reasons for such action, and without being accorded a hearing in 
his own behalf by the Regents. 

We are far from believing that the above mentioned acts are 
indications of an intent upon the part of the Regents to deal un- 
justly with the Faculty either as a body or as individuals but we 
do believe that they are indications of a growing lack of mutual 
understanding which should be the subject of serious considera- 
tion upon the part of both bodies. 

We urge, therefore, that there may be occasional meetings of 
the Regents and the Faculty for the serious open discussion of 
problems pertaining to the life and development of the University, 
and request that your honorable body may take under consid- 
eration the questions of (a) the tenure of office of University 
teachers, and (b) the nature of the relationship that should exist 
between a teacher and the University. Respectfully submitted. 

(Signed) Jos. F. Merrill, 
Chairman of Meeting. 

The signatures of forty-seven professors and instructors were 
attached. 

This petition manifestly was a courteous and friendly 
suggestion of practicable means for a freer consultation and 
a better understanding between Faculty and Regents. The 
only response to it which reached the petitioners was a note 
from the Secretary of the Board stating that the communi- 
cation had been received and laid upon the table. The 
action of the Board on March 17, 1915, thus seemed to many 
of the Faculty to be a reiteration, upon a still graver occa- 
sion, of the Board's former discourteous refusal, to give any 
attention to the earnest and respectful representations of 
the educational staff of the University. 

To this complaint of the resigning professors the Board of 
Regents made three answers: 



46 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

(a) The Board states that the Faculty petition was not 
in fact received by it at its meeting of March 17. The peti- 
tion was in the portfoHo of the Secretary, who declares that 
"he used his best efforts to bring it to the attention of the 
Board, but without success." The Board adds: 

In simple justice to the Board of Regents and to the Secretary 
it should be said that the hour was very late and that the Secre- 
tary did use his best endeavors to have the Board consider a num- 
ber of communications addressed to the Board. On account of 
the lateness of the hour it was ordered that all further business be 
carried over until the next meeting. It was not until several days 
after March 17, that the Regents knew that such petition was in 
the portfoho of the Secretary at the meeting in question. 

The force of this explanation seems to the Committee 
much diminished by certain facts. That the University 
Faculty had drawn up a petition to the Regents with refer- 
ence to proposed dismissals and demotion had been published 
in the city newspapers, and even in conspicuous headlines in 
those newspapers, on March 9, and in the college newspaper 
on March 10. It is, therefore, somewhat difficult to suppose 
that all the Regents as individuals were unaware on March 
17 that a communication had been submitted by the Faculty, 
relating to the matters of business then before the Board. It 
was, in fact, a matter of common knowledge throughout the 
city and state that petitions bearing on these matters had 
been sent in, not only by the Faculty, but also (in much 
more emphatic terms), by the students, the Alumni Asso- 
ciation, the Federation of Women's Clubs, and one or two 
other organizations. That they had before them a mass of 
protests against the acceptance of the President's recom- 
mendations without a thorough investigation, was the capi- 
tal fact confronting the Regents at their meeting. The 
"Public Statement" adopted at that meeting twice refers 
to requests for an investigation. Furthermore, President 
Kingsbury who was present at this meeting of the Board, 
was also well aware of the action of the Faculty. Again, 
it seems to the Committee an unusual procedure for a 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 47 

public body to postpone the hearing of petitions relating 
to a pending matter until after the matter is disposed of; 
this, however, was, by the Board's Statement, its procedure 
on March 17. The Committee is, therefore, unable to con- 
clude that the Board as a whole was ignorant that the 
Faculty and other bodies had addressed it, asking it to 
investigate the charges before acting; and it is compelled 
to believe that the failure of the Secretary's "best endeav- 
ors" to have these communications considered was essen- 
tially due to the Board's frequently announced resolution 
to sustain the President without an investigation. 

The Board of Regents further explains to this Committee 
that, though it did not receive the Faculty petition, it "has 
done just exactly what the petition requested, without know- 
ing that the petition was there," inasmuch as "an oppor- 
tunity for full hearing to Dr. Knowlton, Associate Professor 
Wise and Instructors Snow and Bing, was afforded." That 
the Board did in fact offer these teachers a hearing has al- 
ready been indicated. It appears, however, somewhat 
excessive to suggest that the Board's action was in substan- 
tial conformity with the Faculty's request. The Committee 
is unable to suppose, and can not assume that the Board 
supposed, that the Faculty was petitioning for a hearing 
which should have no influence upon the Board's acceptance 
or rejection of the President's recommendations. The 
Board, however, by its own statement, adopted at the meet- 
ing at which the recommendations were considered, declared 
that "no judicial or other investigation could change or ob- 
viate the fact" which led the Board to sustain those recom- 
mendations. The petition, moreover, asked for a hearing 
for each of the men "affected adversely by the recent recom- 
mendations of the President." One of the men so affected 
was Professor Marshall, who after many years' service was 
superseded in the headship of the English department by 
the appointment of Mr. O. J. P. Widtsoe, Principal of the 
Latter Day Saints High School, to that position. It was 
intimated by the President and the Board* that Professor 

* "Public Statement," page 14. 



48 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

Marshall's demotion was due to inefficiency, a charge re- 
garded as unfair by many of his colleagues and former stu- 
dents, and believed by them not to correspond to the Presi- 
dent's real motive in making the change. The Committee 
has not learned that any investigation into these matters 
was offered Professor Marshall. 

3. The Board's most significant answer to the complaint 
that the University Faculty has hitherto been unable to get 
its views and its requests properly presented to, and consid- 
ered by, the Board is, in substance, a recognition of the 
justice of the complaint, together with a plan for the future 
correction of the condition complained of. In a communi- 
cation to an alumni committee on April 13,* the Board, 
speaking of the ''alleged inadequacy of consultation between 
the Faculty and Regents which has characterized our prac- 
tice in the past," does not deny the allegations, but announces 
the adoption of measures for securing fuller consultations 
between the^'two bodies hereafter. The first step to this end 
was the adoption of the following resolution on March 27, 
1915: 

Resolved: That the Chairman appoint a committee of five on 
Faculty Relations, whose duty it shall be to keep posted on the 
views of the Faculty and to report the same to the Board; and the 
Faculty is hereby invited to constitute such committees as it may 
see fit with such respective duties and powers as it may give from 
time to time; and the Faculty may provide how the Board shall 
be advised of its views. 

A committee of seven members of the Faculty appointed 
to devise a method for carrying the above resolution into 
effect has recommended the following "Plan of Adminis- 
tration:" 

1. There shall be estabUshed an Administrative Council of the 
University of Utah. The President and Deans of the Schools 
shall be ex officio members of the Administrative Council, and the 

* Published in Salt Lake City newspapers on April 14. 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 49 

Faculty shall elect from its own body members v/hose number 
shall be two more than the number of ex officio members. 

2. The President of the University shall be ex officio chairman 
of the Administrative Council and its executive officer. 

3. The Administrative Council shall determine, subject to the 
approval of the Board of Regents, all matters pertaining to the 
educational policy and educational administration of the Uni- 
versity. Examples of these matters are — requests for appropria- 
tions, apportionment of funds, the appointment, promotion, de- 
motion, removal, or failure to recommend for reappointment, 
members of the teaching force, and such other matters as may be 
referred to the Council by the President, Board of Regents, or the 
Faculty. 

4. All appointments, removals or changes in rank of members 
of the teaching force shall be made upon recommendation of the 
President to the Administrative Council after consultation with 
heads of Departments and Deans of Schools concerned. 

5. All legislative power shall be vested in the Faculty of the 
University. 

6. The Administrative Council shall hold regular monthly 
meetings during the school year, and such special meetings as may 
be found necessary. 

7. Of the members of the Administrative Council elected by 
the Faculty, one-half shall be elected for one year, and the re- 
mainder shall be elected for two years. Their successors shall be 
elected for two years; they shall be elected by secret ballot, and a 
majority of all votes cast shall be necessary to election. 

8. A record shall be kept of all actions of the Administrative 
Council. The record shall be open to inspection by the Faculty 
and Board of Regents. All votes on matters of policy or admin- 
istration shall be by roll call and the names of the voters and the 
way in which their ballots are cast shall be part of the record. 

9. The regular medium of communication with the Regents 
shall be the Administrative Council, but the Faculty may at any 
time communicate with the Regents by conference, resolution, 
special conmiittee, or otherwise. 

The Committee has asked the Dean of the School of 
Education, Professor Milton Bennion to inform it whether 
the complete plan has been officially adopted. Mr. Ben- 
nion replies on April 23 : 



50 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

We have assurance from the Regents' Committee on Faculty 
Relations that we may go ahead with the operation of this plan 
and amend it from time to time without presenting it to them for 
approval. The Chairman of the Faculty Committee has just 
received a letter from the Chairman of the Regents' Committee 
suggesting that we provide specifically for transmitting both ma- 
jority and minority Faculty views to the Regents whenever there 
is a difference of opinion on important matters or a difference be- 
tween the Faculty and the President. If the plan is modified 
before being put into operation, it will be in conformity with the 
wishes of the majority of the Faculty. Pending the adoption of 
this plan and the election of the Council, the members of the Fac- 
ulty who have not resigned have elected by a secret ballot six of 
their number to act with the President and the three Deans who 
have not resigned as a temporary Administrative Council. The 
Regents' Committee on Faculty Relations has had several meet- 
ings with the Faculty during the past few weeks. At two such 
meetings held this week, the problems of freedom of teaching, 
political activity on the part of Faculty members, and tenure of 
office were freely discussed by both Regents and Faculty members. 
There seems now to be a thorough understanding between the 
faculty and the Regents' Committee in regard to these matters. 

The Committee views these changes in the plan of admin- 
istration of the University of Utah with much satisfaction. 
They provide practicable means for the correction of two of 
the most serious imperfections in the constitution of most 
American colleges and universities, namely : the lack of con- 
ference, and frequently of a good understanding, between 
the two legislative bodies of such institutions, the Faculty 
and the Board of Trustees; and the anomalous position of 
the college president, as the only representative before the 
board of trustees, of the views and wishes of a faculty which 
does not select him as its representative, and to which he is 
in no way responsible. The scheme of organization pro- 
posed for adoption at the University of Utah might, in the 
Committee's opinion, be considered and imitated with ad- 
vantage by many other universities and colleges. 

The Committee feels, however, obliged to add that its 
satisfaction in learning of these changes in the administra- 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 51 

tive machinery of the University is sensibly decreased by 
certain circumstances which must be mentioned. 

(a) The Board of Regents has refused to apply the new 
plan of action to the cases which came before it during 
March, 1915. Initiated only ten days after the meeting of 
March 17, the plan was peculiarly applicable to the situa- 
tion then existing, inasmuch as it was adopted in recognition 
of the fact that the Board had not hitherto had so full 
knowledge as was desirable of the judgment and the state of 
feeling of the Faculty. By suspending its action until coun- 
sel should be taken with the Faculty, the Board would not 
only have given convincing evidence of the earnestness of its 
desire to do justice to the views of the teaching staff, but 
would also have done much to put an end to the dissatis- 
faction, suspicion and public criticism to which its previous 
action had already given rise. The Committee deeply re- 
grets that this course was not followed by the Board. 

(b) The Board, so far as the Committee is aware, has at 
no time indicated its abandonment of the rule of policy upon 
which the Committee has already animadverted; indeed, the 
most extreme expression of that policy has been published 
since the adoption of the plan for a "Faculty Relations Com- 
mittee." The Regents still stand pubhcly conmiitted to 
the principle that, whenever a superior officer declares the 
existence of an ''irreparable breach" between himself and 
any subordinates, the Board will not inquire who is right 
and who is wrong in the disagreement, but will simply retain 
the officer whose services are deemed more valuable, and 
dismiss the others. Until this principle is definitely repu- 
diated by the Board, the Committee is unable to see how 
recommendations from a Faculty Committee can have any 
relevancy to the considerations which actually move the 
Board in its action upon recommendations of the President. 
The Faculty recommendations, in such a matter, presum- 
ably can deal only with the merits of the case; but the Board 
has twice officially announced, and has never withdrawn the 
announcement, that it is not concerned with the merits of 
the case. 



52 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

In view of these circumstances, the members of the Com- 
mittee feel constrained to reserve final judgment as to the 
actual effects of the new plan until its working under local 
conditions has been tested by experience. 

The Committee thinks it incumbent upon it, as a matter 
of justice, to make two remarks concerning the members of 
the Utah Faculty who resigned between March 18 and 27. 
The importance attached by the Board to the new adminis- 
trative plan is manifestly equivalent to an acknowledgment 
that there were substantial grounds for the protest made by 
these teachers against antecedent conditions. And if, as 
the Committee earnestly hopes, beneficent consequences to 
the University eventually result from the adoption of this 
reform, the credit must primarily be given to the men who, 
at the cost of personal sacrifices, made the protest necessary 
to bring the reform about. 



Til. THE COMPLAINT OF ''REPRESSION" 

Several of the resigning professors charge that the recent 
policy of the University administration has been character- 
ized by an effort to repress the legitimate liberty of utterance 
of members of the Faculty upon political, economic and 
religious questions. It is not charged that this in any case 
led to dismissal, but only that a number of teachers were on 
various occasions summoned to the President's office and 
given what they construed to be official warnings against the 
repetition of certain public utterances, or the continuance of 
certain civic activities. It seems clear that the action of 
the President in these instances was not due to any personal 
desire to restrict the freedom of expression of teachers on 
such matters, but to an apprehensiveness with regard to the 
effect of certain professional utterances upon influential citi- 
zens, or upon the Board of Regents, the State Legislature, 
or the Governor, and consequently upon the amount of the 
appropriations received by the University. An illustration 
of the character and motive of the President's intervention 
in relation to the discussion of religious questions by pro- 
fessors, is given in extracts from a letter addressed to Presi- 
dent Kingsbury on March 26, 1915, by Dr. Joseph Peter- 
son, Professor of Psychology : 

My Dear Dr. Kingsbury: Following is as specific a statement 
as my memory permits of instances of advice from you as to the 
need of being careful in my teaching here: 

(1) Nearly three years ago, or at least over two, you called me 
to your ofiice and told me that "& very influential man" in the 
city had objected to certain of my teachings in Genetic Psychology, 
and had said that if his children had to get such things in the 
University he would send them elsewhere. You also said that I 
had been charged with teachings such that my students did not 
care for their religion and that they were not willing to go on mis- 
sions. You named as an example of the former 

53 



54 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

condition. I pointed out tiiat he had not been in any of my 
classes in the University. I named students of mine who had 
gone, and were then on missions, and some who were then talking 

of going on missions. I remember naming to you , 

among others. I also pointed out the fact that such conditions 
as to students' attitudes toward religion were frequent results of 
college education, and that it was unjust to charge all of them to 
my teachings. You agreed to this. 

(2) Later, just before my reappointment two years ago, you 
again called me into the office. You told me that "certain Re- 
gents," or "a certain member of the Board of Regents" — I do 
not remember just which — had brought to you certain criticisms 
of me, that, e.g., I "had taught against the experiences of Joseph 
Smith." This I denied, and offered you means of proof that I 
had not done this, that I had never referred to or made insinua- 
tions concerning such affairs. You also said at this time that 
certain Regents, or a certain Regent, had said that some of the 
members of the Legislature were not willing to make the needed 
appropriations to the University because of my being here. You 
advised me to be extremely careful, "not even to mention the word 
religion," so that people would not feel this way towards the 
University. I told you later that I went twice to your office to 
resign, so that the University might not miss any appropriations 
on my account. You were not in, and in the meantime a colleague 
convinced me (in his own words) "that the University needs some- 
thing else more than it does large appropriations." 

(3) Later I learned that you had defended me, as I remember, to 
Regents, as to my fairness in teaching in the University; you ad- 
vised me, however, incidentally, to bring into class discussions 
and explanations the term God or Deity, if I " could conscientiously 
do so." 

In these conversations your own attitude towards me was 
friendly and obviously to protect me, though after the conversa- 
tion I felt personally that my presence here was beginning to be 
embarrassing to you. Of this view I was very much disabused 
in a conversation with you a year or so ago, after which I con- 
cluded that you actually were anxious for me to remain in the 
University. In this conversation you had pointed out to me that 
my presence here is evidence that the Church is not controlling 
the University. 



EEPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 55 

Other examples of this practice on the part of President 
Kingsbury are given in a letter to the Committee from Dr. 
W. G. Roylance, Professor of History and Political Science : 

(1) Upon request of a number of citizens, including members 
of the Legislature, a professor gave advice and assistance in the 
construction of a Public Utilities Bill and was told by the Presi- 
dent that an objection had come to him, coupled with a threat 
that if such activity did not cease, the University's appropria- 
tions would be cut off. The President declined to disclose the 
source of this complaint and threat, nor would he either approve 
or disapprove of the action in question, 

(2) In numerous instances of complaint to the President of 
utterances of professors in the classroom, bearing upon religion, 
politics and other matters, after proof that nothing improper had 
been said, instead of upholding the accused and vindicated in- 
structor, the President would avail himseK of the incident, as an 
opportunity to impress uporj the instructor the need of caution. 

(3) In general, the President has fallen into the habit of placing 
instructors always on the defensive, with regard to complaints 
from without, yet has failed clearly to vindicate them when com- 
plaints of charges have proven groundless. 

Several other instances of a similar sort have been reported 
to the Committee; some of them are referred to under (3) in 
the Faculty petition of October 28, 1913, already cited. Mr. 
Milton Sevy, a member of the graduating class of 1914, de- 
poses that in conversation with President Kingsbury in 
June, 1914, the President admonished him that he should 

Be careful in saying anything that would offend any supporter 
of the University; that when various interests were supporting 
the University by taxation they were very sensitive about being 
criticized. I repHed that in my opinion the University should 
not yield to the criticism of outside interests, and that students as 
well as Faculty members should be permitted to investigate and 
speak frankly about all matters of public importance. I cited him 
the example of the University of Wisconsin. This seemed rather 
to shift the trend of the President's criticism, and he said that if 
he were in a position to conduct the University as he wished there 
would be even greater academic freedom at the University than I 



56 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

had suggested. He further said that I could not reahze the vari- 
ous forces brought to bear on him as President of the University. 

I told him that I sjnnpathized greatly with him in 

his position, but I thought it a shame that the President of the 
University should have to submit to outside interference. I 
further stated that in my opinion, if the people of the State knew 
the character of the interference he was obliged to tolerate, they 
would rally behind him in his adoption of a broad, progressive 
administrative policy, like that which I had argued for in my 
commencement speech. 

It appears from this testimony that President Kingsbury 
has himself admitted that there exists at the University less 
academic freedom than he regards as desirable. With refer- 
ence to the general situation in the University, the follow- 
ing question was put by this Committee to President 
Kingsbury : 

Question: Does the President feel that in view of local condi- 
tions it is necessary to restrict the utterances and the civic activi- 
ity of professors in the University of Utah to a greater degree than 
might be needful elsewhere? 

Answer: Probably not any more than in several other state 
universities. 

The Committee is also in receipt of a signed article by 
Regent Richard W. Young, Esq., written for the purpose 
of justifying the President and Board of Regents, but 
acknowledging the occurrence of certain incidents of the 
kind complained of by the resigning professors and con- 
ceding that there may have been other such incidents. 
Mr. Young acknowledges: 

That the President had warned a certain prominent professor 
that his activity in behalf of a public utilities bill might injure the 
University; that he advised an instructor against participating in a 
political campaign, and enjoined a partisan rally on the campus. 

In doing these things, President Kingsbury was actuated by an 
abundance (possibly a superabundance) of caution. He feared, 
with much reason, that there might be a disposition, human, 
though illogical, to visit the poUtical sins of the professors on the 



EEPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 57 

school itself. He appreciated that the University moves and has 
its being, not in the pure ether of theory, but in the vitiated 
atmosphere of Earth. 

Occurrences of this kind Mr. Young describes as "trifles," 
and he apparently does not regard such "superabui dance 
of caution" on the part of the President as giving just 
ground for criticism. 

The state of things disclosed by this testimony is mani- 
festly an extremely unwholesome one. In particular, the 
first incident related by Professor Roylance must, it appears 
to the Committee, be of grave interest to the citizens of 
Utah; an official investigation is clearly called for, to deter- 
mine whether the person who made the threat repeated by 
the President holds — as would appear to be suggested — 
some important public office. There exists, doubtless, in 
the case of any state university, a danger that from time to 
time persons possessing, or reputed to possess, political in- 
fluence will attempt to shape the teaching in the University, 
or to restrict the legitimate liberty of utterance and of civic 
action of university teachers, not by direct attack, but by 
threats of reduction of the appropriations. If our state 
universities are to continue to be institutions in which self- 
respecting scholars can serve, or in which the true character 
of a university is maintained, it is essential that all such at- 
tempts be vigorously resented, and that no ground be given 
even for the suspicion that teachers in these institutions are 
under pressure of the sort exemplified in the first case cited 
by Professor Roylance. There may be room for legitimate 
debate concerning the proper limits of freedom of teaching; 
there can be no room for debate as to the impropriety of 
permitting powerful individuals outside the university, 
whether in or out of public office, to dictate to university 
presidents respecting the utterances of university professors. 
And the resistance to such attempts must necessarily come 
first and chiefly from the presidents of the state universities. 
To the Committee it seems clear that President Kingsbury, 
while personally desirous of maintaining a due measure of 



58 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

freedom in the University of Utah, has not sufficiently re- 
sisted pressure of the sort mentioned, but has rather, at 
times, permitted himself to be used as an instrument through 
which such pressure was transmitted to members of the 
Faculty. The Committee recognizes that the President's 
motive in this was doubtless an earnest desire to avoid injury 
to what he believed to be the interests of the University; 
but it can not consider that he has adequately realized the 
truth of the observation of one of his colleagues, that ''the 
University needs something else more than it needs large 
appropriations. ' ' 

The only admissible view with respect both to freedom of 
teaching within a state university, and to the legitimate 
extra-academic activities of teachers in such institutions, 
seems to the Committee to have been expressed with admir- 
able clearness and force in the recent report made to the 
legislature of Wisconsin by the State Board of Public Af- 
fairs, a non-academic body. As the principles enunciated 
by that Board clearly have not hitherto been fully realized 
at the University of Utah, the Committee thinks it pertinent 
to quote several passages of the report : 

Certain activities of the University have taken it into the 
domain of public affairs to an extent which has resulted in the 
charge that the University is in politics. Complaint has been 
made that members of the Faculty appear before committees of 
the Legislature in advocacy of or in opposition to pending meas- 
ures affecting the University as a whole or certain of its colleges, 
schools or departments. In the opinion of this Board it would 
be impossible for the Legislature to act wisely with regard to any 
bill affecting the University without consulting those in charge of 
the department, college or school to be affected 

Complaint has been made also that members of the Faculty 
have framed and advocated legislation. In recent years, while 
the state has been attempting to meet economic and industrial 
needs by new legislation it has been a conunon practice to consult 
with those who have studied and written of those problems. In 
the University Faculty there have been and now are men who by 
reason of a life-time of study are famihar with the various phases 
of these problems as they have developed and as they have been 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 59 

treated in other countries and states. Many of those urging 
legislation along these Imes have read the writings of these men, 
and not infrequently legislators, attempting to apply the experi- 
ence of other states and countries to Wisconsin conditions, have 
sought personal interviews with those professors having special 
knowledge of the subject under consideration. In the opinion 
of this Board, the state, having engaged the services of the men 
in the University Faculty, is entitled to such advice and counsel 
as these men can give regarding the subjects to which they have 
devoted much and special attention 

That occasionally members of the University faculty have been 
active at election time has been charged and is true. In the 
opinion of the board of public affairs it is neither possible nor de- 
sirable to deprive a college professor of the pohtical rights vouch- 
safed to every citizen. Investigation shows that in so far as stu- 
dents, Faculty members and Regents are in politics as individuals, 
the University of Wisconsin is in politics. Students form political 
organizations, both partisan and factional, representing every 
faction and every party. Members of the faculty on occasions 
address these student clubs and give expression to personal con- 
victions. In so doing, students, Professors and Regents, in the 
opinion of this Board, have exercised only their rights to inde- 
pendent thought and action as individuals and citizens 

In the opinion of this Board, any attempt on the part of the 
state to prevent or discourage political activity along broad lines 
would be un-American. The University of Wisconsin is a public 
institution. Its politics and practices are determined by public 
opinion. So long as the University continues as a part of the 
state, so long must the State preserve freedom of expression and 
action regarding it 

Conflict of interest and opinion naturally begets misunder- 
standing and misrepresentation. Motives are questioned and 
opposition engendered to such an extent that those who represent 
the institution frequently are made to quail before the attack. 
Therefore, the people weU may look with concern upon assaults 
calculated to impair the usefulness of the institution. In such 
crises it is the duty of the state to defend freedom of investigation, 
freedom of instruction, and freedom of opinion and expression in 
its University to the end that academic freedom may not be an 
empty phrase, but shall be a living fact. (Report upon the Sur- 
vey of the University of Wisconsin, December, 1914. Madison, 
Wisconsin: State Printer, pp. 9-13.) 



IV. INTERVENTION OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE 
STATE IN FACULTY MATTERS 

The Committee turns now to examine into an incident 
which, while it is essentially merely a further illustration of 
the conditions set forth in the preceding section of this re- 
port, acquires special significance because of the part which 
the Governor of the State is alleged to have played in it. 

The incident had its origin in a class oration delivered by 
Mr. Milton H. Sevy, a member of the graduating class of 
1914, at the Commencement of that year. The oration, of 
which a copy is before the Committee, is in general a plea 
for an abandonment of the ultra-conservatism which the 
speaker declares to have been long characteristic of Utah, 
and to have secured ^'an octopus-like grasp upon our politi- 
cal life." The principal contention of the disclosure is 
illustrated by the following citations : 

What we need is a different point of view. The people m,ust 
be converted that their political hope lies in the breaking down of 
ultra-conservatism and in the leadership of young, progressive 
men. The time is ripe for this change; only the proper leadership 
is needed. There are many young men in Utah, graduates of other 
colleges, graduates from our own institution, and men without 
college education, who are ready and willing to disregard political 
differences and fight to place Utah on the progressive map. This 
transformation will take some time; the new leaders must fight 
against the inertia of the established prestige of present leaders; 
but here is an urgent present need in the state, a need which calls 
to the University as an institution and to its graduates, to assume 
the role of leadership 

Granted that these problems are vital and a solution desirable, 
you will say, how is the University to adjust itself to meet them? 
Already the pioneer work is under way. The extension work, 
the correspondence work, the social survey work, and above all, 
the new fife and vigor now being generated within the alumni 

60 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 61 

organization are all steps leading towards the desired goal. But 
this is not sufficient. What the University most needs, and must 
have, if it is to assume the role of leadership, is a definite, vigor- 
ous, progressive policy. It should strike out and generate public 
opinion and public policy, instead of occupying a compromise 
position. Unfortunately, there still remains some vestige of the 
old-time church antagonism. Some provincial ideas and narrow 
prejudices are still held by representatives of all factions. In the 
past, diplomacy has demanded that the University attempt to 
placate all factions by following the happy mean as a policy. But 
we have now reached a crisis in our development ; we can not grow 
as we should under such a policy; we must have a broader and 
bigger outlook. This lingering ghost of former troubles should 
now be banished from our midst; it should no longer have a hear- 
ing in our council chambers in determining the policy of our insti- 
tutions. The University should help dehver this death blow by 
adopting a broad, definite and progressive pohcy, and then carry- 
ing that policy into effect — regardless of the outside criticism of 
Reverend A., Bishop B., or Taxpayer C. If this condition pre- 
vailed, then the taxpayers throughout the state would have in- 
finitely greater confidence in their state institution, and this con- 
fidence would be measured in greater appropriations. The Uni- 
versity would then become, in a true sense, the great dynamic 
force in the state. 

The speaker incidentally argued briefly in favor of four 
specific measures: A public utilities commission, an inves- 
tigation into the methods of mining and industrial corpora- 
tions, a more liberal support of the juvenile court, and re- 
forms in the State's sytem of taxation. In referring to the 
last, the speaker complimented Governor Spry upon having 
taken the initiative in this reform. The oration contained 
a single sentence reflecting upon some legislators for the 
reasons alleged to have been given by them for voting 
against a certain University appropriation. 

If a progressive point of view prevailed, state legislators would 
be forced to give better reasons for voting against girls' dormi- 
tories, than the one given in 1913; namely, that the housing of 
cattle at the state fair should take precedence over the housing of 
girls at the University. 



62 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

The Commencement oration seems to the Committee, 
whatever its limitations in thought and taste, to tend to 
show that the teachers in University of Utah were giving to 
its students what ought especially to be desired in graduates 
of a state university — some independence of thought and an 
eager and liberal-minded interest in public affairs. It is full 
of that hopeful insurgency of youth upon which the con- 
tinued intellectual vitality of any community must depend. 
To many of its local hearers it appears to have contained 
especial promise and significance, as an expression of the 
temper of the younger generation in the state. No person 
of generous mirid, however much in disagreement with the 
views expressed, can have failed to hear it at least with 
good humor and with appreciation of the natural and 
wholesome youthful enthusiasm which characterized it. 

It has, however, been asserted by alumni, by some of the 
resigning professors and others, that the Governor of Utah 
took umbrage at this discourse, expressed his disapproval of 
it to the University authorities and brought pressure to 
secure the disciplining of such professors as had read and 
approved of the speech before its delivery. In inquiring 
into the truth of these assertions, the committee laid the 
following question before President Kingsbury. 

Question: Did the Governor of the state, or any member of 
the State Administration, ever express to President Kingsbury, 
directly or indirectly, an unfavorable opinion of the speech of Mr. 
Sevy, delivered at the 1914 Commencement? 

Answer: No. 

The Committee regrets to state that this answer does not 
in any way indicate the essential facts of the matter about 
which the Committee sought information, and that, indeed, 
the answer can be reconciled with the facts and with certain 
other testimony only upon the assumption that Dr. Kings- 
bury gave to the word ''indirectly," in the above question, a 
special and unfamiliar sense. The facts and testimony are 
the following : 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 63 

(a) Governor Spry on June 6, 1914, sent to the Board of 
Regents a long letter expressing strong indignation over 
Mr. Sevy's speech. The letter, of which a copy is before 
the Committee, contained the following passage: 

In attending the Commencement exercises of the University on 
Wednesday last, I was amazed at the utterances of the Class 
Valedictorian. While the impulse was strong to give public ex- 
pression of my disapproval of the spirit of the address, and while 
I felt that the extravagant criticisms should not pass unchallenged, 
I refrained mentioning the matter in my address, feeling that do- 
ing so might embarrass and tend to mar the proceedings of the 
day. However, deliberate reflection upon the matter convinces 
me that I would be negligent to my duty did I not call the matter 
to the attention of the Board of Regents and enter a most vigorous 
protest against this outbreak. 

The Committee would, .even in the absence of the testi- 
mony following, be unable to suppose that the President 
of the University was unaware that the Governor had ex- 
pressed an unfavorable opinion of the speech to the Board 
of Regents, of which body the President is a member. 

(b) Mr. Milton H. Sevy states under oath that on or 
about June 6, 1914, he had a long conference with the Pres- 
ident, at the latter's request. Mr. Sevy deposes that on 
this occasion the President said in substance and effect : 

That the Governor had taken the matter of my Commencement 
speech up with the Board of Regents and they had requested him, 
the President, to speak to me about it The Presi- 
dent proceeded to admonish me to be careful in saying anything 
that would offend any supporters of the University, that when 
various interests were supporting the University by taxation they 
were very sensitive about being criticized, etc. [What follows in 
the affidavit, has been cited above.] 

It is, then, established, in the first place, that the Gover- 
nor protested to the Regents against the speech; that the 
President knew of this protest; and that in consequence of 
it he cautioned the author of the speech, on the ground that 



64 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

such utterances might unfavorably affect the University's 
appropriations.* Thus far the incident appears as an ex- 
ample of the policy of repression already mentioned. 

It is, however, charged that the Governor did not merely 
indicate his disapproval of the speech, but brought pressure 
to bear upon the President and Regents to have them curb 
or dismiss the individual teachers who had passed favorably 
upon the speech before its delivery. With reference to this 
matter the Committee put the following question to Presi- 
dent Kingsbury: 

Question: Did the Governor ever seek from President Kings- 
bury or (so far as Dr. Kingsbury is aware) from any professors, 
information as to what members of the University Faculty had 
read, or passed upon, Mr. Sevy's speech, before its delivery? 

Answer: No. The Governor did not seek to find out from 
President Kingsbury information as to the person or persons who 
may have read or passed upon Mr. Sevy's speech, nor did he seek 
this information from any professors, so far as the President knows. 

On the other hand, the Committee has before it the fol- 
lowing evidence upon this point. 

(1) Mr. Sevy's affidavit states: 

On or about the 4th of June, 1914, Prof. F. W. Reynolds 
of the University of Utah met me, and in referring to my com- 
mencement speech Professor Reynolds asked laughingly who I 
had had write it, and said complaint had come from the Govern- 
or's office accusing me of having had my speech written by mem- 
bers of the University Faculty. While walking from Douglas 
Avenue and Third South Street toward the University he asked 
if I would have any objections to a conference with the Governor 
on the matter. I answered, "Not in the least." He further 
asked me to call and see President Kingsbury, 

Mr. Sevy deposes that in the course of his subsequent 
interview with Dr. Kingsbury, the President asked: 

* It is, of course, evident that the Governor, through his influence with 
the Legislature and through the veto power, was in a position to determine 
the amount of the appropriations. 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 65 

Whether any Faculty members had anything to do with my 
speech, either writing it or passing upon it. I told him that Dean 
Cummings had looked at it from the standpoint of content and 
Mr. Snow and others had heard it deHvered from the standpoint 
of declamation. The President said he was glad Dean Cummings 
had examined it, because he was a stand-pat Republican, and it 
had been charged that Democratic and Progressive Faculty mem- 
bers were responsible for the speech. 

It appears from this sworn testimony that President 
Kingsbury himself, as well as Professor Reynolds, sought 
to learn what professors had passed upon the speech. The 
testimony does not state that this was done at the direct 
request of the Governor; but it shows that these inquiries 
were made in consequence of communications received from 
the Governor. The affidavit also contains evidence that 
criticism of the speech was based partly upon political 
grounds, and that these criticisms were made from the 
standpoint of the political party to which the Governor 
belongs. 

(2) The letter of the Governor to the Board of Regents 
definitely requested the Board to take disciplinary measures 
against any teacher in the University who might be respon- 
sible for Mr. Sevy's suggestion of more liberal appropria- 
tions for the University.* The passages of the letter refer- 
ring to Faculty responsibility for the speech are here cited: 

I had hoped that investigation would clear the members of the 
Faculty of the University of any responsibility for the utterances, 
which I sincerely trusted could be attributed to the inexperience 
and irresponsibility of the young man who thus unburdened him- 
self. From information I have received, it appears, however, 
that prior to the delivery of the paper, members of the Faculty 
passed upon it, and subsequent to its delivery have expressed 
themselves as feeling that it was proper and in good taste. 

It is apparent that the seeds of unbridled criticism of state offi- 
cers and members of the Legislature, by officials and members of 

* It is to the single sentence of the speech mentioning this matter, that 
the Governor's three-page letter apparently refers. 



66 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

the Faculty of the University of Utah in their eagerness to secure 
larger and ever larger appropriations for the institution, are bear- 
ing fruit in a generation of graduates who, unacquainted with that 
fine feeling of gratitude and appreciation of the state's interest 
and generosity in their behalf — ^that one could hope and look for 
as the patrimony of higher education — fail to recognize the extent 
of their obligations, sneer at what has been done for them at great 
cost and ofttimes great sacrifice, and, with the approbation of 
their college professors, heap abuse on the state and her institu- 
tions — all in utter disregard of the real facts. 

In the past the zeal of those who have appeared before the 
Legislature to urge appropriations for the University has led them 
to thoughtless and extravagant statements calculated to minimize 
in the minds of legislators the adequacy of the state's provision 
for the institution, and it appears that not content with crying 
"parsimony" around the halls of the Legislature, officials of the 
University have carried the propaganda to the institution itself 
with the result that graduates have the effrontery to indulge in 
unrestrained abuse of the state. This is wrong, it is a crying 
shame, and the responsibility lies with officials of the institution 
who have permitted students to enjoy the advantages of the 
University without impressing upon them in some measure at 
least their obligations and their future responsibilities. If the 
courses of the University come no nearer providing accurate infor- 
mation regarding the state than was evidenced in the valedictory 
address of last Wednesday, I submit it is high time a hand be 
taken in the affairs of the institution to the end that at least with 
relation to the affairs of the commonwealth of which we expect 
graduates of the institution to be identified, they be supplied with 
facts and not theories and vagaries of dreamers and dema- 
gogues 

There is a growing feeling in the state that the burden [of tax- 
ation for educational purposes] is more than the people can carry, 
and I am fearful that this sentiment will crystallize in a general 
curtailment of educational appropriations. It is this fear that 
has prompted me to speak to you personally and impels me to 
address this letter to you, urging that those who are responsible 
in the University for the unwarranted, untrue ideas regarding the 
attitude the state has taken toward educational matters and insti- 
tutions, be curbed in their utterances or relieved of their positions. 
They are a menace to the educational interests of the state. 



EEPOET OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 67 

Let me beg of the Board of Regents that they take the initiative 
in a movement that will have for its prime object discouragement 
of the rapidly growing tendency among certain of our educators to 
demand of the people more than the people can give to the inter- 
ests of education. 

This letter shows unmistakably that the Governor was 
much in earnest in desiring that action be taken against any 
members of the Faculty who had inspired Mr. Sevy's ora- 
tion or had sanctioned its delivery. 

(3) The Committee has received testimony from a num- 
ber of sources that Prof. R. R. Lyman, a personal friend of 
the Governor's, made inquiries during February, 1915 — 
while the appropriation bills were pending — to ascertain 
what teachers had passed favorably upon the oration. 
These inquiries were believed by those concerned to be 
made at the request and, for the information of the Govern- 
or. Mr. C. W. Snow, one of the instructors dismissed on 
March 17, submits the following deposition: 

State of Utah 1 

County of Salt Lake] 

I, Charles W. Snow, being first duly sworn according to law, 
depose and say: 

That on or about the 24th day of February, A.D., 1915, Presi- 
dent Kingsbury of the University of Utah, summoned me to his 
ofiice and informed me that he would not recommend me to the 
Board of Regents of the University of Utah for reappointment as 
instructor in the English Department of the said institution ; that 
on or about the aforesaid date, Prof. Richard R. Lyman invited 
me to his office at the University, and there asked me what con- 
nection, if any, I had with the writing of the commencement ad- 
dress of Mr, Milton H. Sevy; that in reply to said inquiry, I in- 
formed Professor Lyman that Mr. Sevy himself wrote the address 
but that I went over it with him for the purpose of aiding him in 
rhetoric and delivery; that Prof. Lyman thereupon informed me 
that I had acted untactfully; that I am unable to swear positively 
whether the aforesaid interview with Prof. Lyman took place 
before or immediately after my dismissal by President Kingsbury, 
but I do swear positively that the said interview took place on or 



68 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

about the same date as my dismissal; that I am further able to 
swear positively that the day after my dismissal, while reporting 
my dismissal to Dean Byron Cummings, Dean Cummings informed 
me that Prof. Lyman had been seeking to ascertain from him his 
(Cummings') connection, if any, with Mr. Sevy's speech. 

Charles W. Snow. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of May, A.D., 1915. 

A, M. Cheney, 
Notary Public. 

The Committee has the following affidavit from Dean 
Cummings : 

On the afternoon of the 23rd or 24th of February, Prof. Richard 
R. Lyman called me up by phone and asked if I had a copy of 
Milton Sevy's speech. On my stating that I had not, and asking 
why, he replied that he understood that I had something to do 
with the preparation of that speech and so he thought I probably 
had a copy of it. I stated that, if he cared to know, Mr. Sevy 
came into my office and read the speech to me before he delivered 
it on the commencement stage. 

On Monday, March 1, at close of Faculty meeting, I asked 
Prof. Lyman if he had secured all the information he desired. He 
pleaded ignorance of what I meant and on being reminded that 
he had seemed specially interested in a certain speech, he said that 
he had had a conference with Mr. Snow that day and thought he 
had gotten some added information. I then asked him why he 
was so much interested in Sevy's speech anyway; and he replied 
that he was asked to get certain information and was proceeding 
to do so. 

On the following Friday evening, March fifth, at a University 
party on the campus. Prof. Lyman, during the course of a conver- 
sation said that perhaps he ought to make a confession to me and 
proceeded to state that in conversation with the Governor a few 
days before, the Governor had stated that he (the Governor) had 
heard that Mr. Cummings knew all about Sevy's speech before it 
was delivered, that he could not believe it, etc., that Prof. Ljnxian 
had replied that he did not believe it but thought he could find out 
if he would like to know, and that he had proceeded to find out. 
I remarked that he had found out to his satisfaction, I hoped. He 
said he had, but that he was not going to tell the Governor. I 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 69 

suggested that the Governor might call me up and get the facts 
at first hand." 

Respectfully yours, 
Byron Cummings. 
Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ninth day of April, 1915. 

R. N. Forsyth, 
Notary Public. 

III. One of the members of the university Faculty who 
has not resigned, states that: 

In February, 1915, Professor Lyman spoke to him in substance, 
as follows: "The Governor told me that he would like to know 
who the three men were who saw that (Sevy's) speech before it 
was delivered. He (the Governor) meant to see that these men 
were disciplined." 

The writer of this statement explained orally that he was 
uncertain whether the last affirmation was a quotation from 
the Governor, or merely an expression of Mr. Lyman's 
belief as to the Governor's purposes. In a subsequent let- 
ter, the writer informs the Committee that he has been called 
upon by Professor Lyman (to whom a copy of the statement 
had been sent by the Committee), and that 

Lyman denied positively that the Governor intimated such a 
thing. The conclusion is, therefore, that the idea of discipline was 
Lyman's only. 

It is to be observed that the writer does not modify that 
part of his original statement which declares that Mr. Lyman 
reported the Governor to be desirous of knowing what 
teachers in the University had seen Mr. Sevy's speech be- 
fore it was delivered. The Committee, however, is already 
aware, from the Governor's own letter, that he was of the 
opinion that some disciplinary action should be taken 
against these men. 

Professor Lyman, on the other hand, has sent the Commit- 
tee an affidavit, and subsequently a supplementary state- 



70 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

ment, relating to these incidents. He states that about 
the middle of February he "happened to meet Governor 
Spry and walked with him a block or two towards his home." 
Their conversation fell upon University matters, and in 
the course of it, the commencement speech of Mr. Sevy was 
mentioned. Mr. Lyman expressed his disapproval of this 
speech. The Governor, he deposes: 

Promptly explained that the expression of such sentiments 
on such an occasion might be overlooked when coming from a 
student, but that he had been told that a certain professor (giv- 
ing his name) read this address before it was delivered. The 
Governor added that he had known this professor for many years 
and regarded him as a close, personal friend; he knew him to be 
wise and conservative, and did not believe that this professor 
would read such an address and then allow it to be delivered at 
the commencement exercises to which the state officials, who were 
thus severely criticized, had been iavited as guests of honor. I 
agreed with the Governor that the teacher named had probably 
not read the address before it was delivered. 

On the first day of March I learned where a copy of the address 
could be found, and about the same time I learned the names of 
several of the teachers who heard the address before it was deliv- 
ered. I did not go to the trouble of getting a copy of it until 
April 9, after you had requested me to prepare this affidavit. The 
Governor did not ask me to get this address or the names of teach- 
ers who were connected with its preparation. I did not proffer 
to get this information for him; he certainly was not expecting me 
to secure it, and he has not asked me an5rthing concerning it. 

Dean Hohnan in his list of public charges and, I believe, refer- 
ring to me, said "a, professor has been busily engaged on behalf of 
certain outside interests behind the administration in ascertain- 
ing just what members of the Faculty Mr. Sevy permitted to see 
his speech before he delivered it; and this gentleman discovered 
and reported that Dean Cummings and Professor Roylance 
among others had seen Mr. Sevy's speech before he delivered it. 

That my discoveries were those named by Mr. Holman is un- 
true. And what my discoveries were, no one else (except Mr. 
Sevy, so far as I am aware) knows to this day. That I repeated 
names mentioned, or any other names to any one as being in any 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 71 

way connected with the preparation or delivery of this speech is 
likewise untrue and is without the slightest foundation in fact. 

Yours very truly, 
Richard R. Lyman. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of April, 1915. 

A. R. Emery. 

The declaration of a witness already cited, as to remarks 
made by Mr. Lyman concerning the Governor's attitude 
towards the teachers who had approved Mr. Sevy's speech, 
is contradicted by Mr. Lyman in his supplementary state- 
ment. That he did in fact make the inquiries reported by 
Dean Cummings and Mr. Snow, and that these inquiries 
were made at the instance of some other person or persons, 
is not denied by Mr. Lyman; who this person or these per- 
sons were, he declines to state, except that, he affirms that 
the Governor was in no way responsible for his investiga- 
tions. 

The Committee does not feel called upon to attempt to 
resolve the conflict of testimony as to Professor Lyman's 
alleged utterances concerning the Governor's attitude dur- 
ing the month of February, 1915. The evidence as a whole, 
however, seems to the Committee to justify certain con- 
clusions : 

(a) The Governor of the state clearly attempted to exer- 
cise an improper pressure upon the Regents and the Pres- 
ident of the University to cause them to take some dis- 
ciplinary action against the teachers who had failed to 
prevent Mr. Sevy from delivering a speech of which the 
Governor disapproved. The concluding passage of the 
Governor's letter to the Regents contained a veiled but 
unmistakable intimation that the Governor himself would 
adopt an unfavorable attitude towards the university ap- 
propriation bills, unless certain teachers were "curbed in 
their utterances or relieved of their positions." The utter- 
ances of teachers and students to which the Governor speci- 
fically referred were alleged expressions of the view that 
larger appropriations for the State University were desirable. 



72 AMEEICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

The Governor described these teachers as making exorbi- 
tant and unreasonable demands for educational appro- 
priations. There was, however, nothing either in Mr. 
Sevy's speech, or in any reported utterances of the pro- 
fessors in question to justify this characterization of their 
attitude. If the Governor's reason for demanding that 
the Board discipline the teachers concerned was such as is 
specified in his letter, he was suggesting the removal of 
university teachers for favoring and permitting students and 
alumni to argue publicly in favor of more liberal appropria- 
tions for the institution, with which they were connected. 
If this were generally regarded in state universities as a 
ground for removal, it is to be feared that the faculties of 
nearly all such universities would be greatly depleted. 
The Committee, however, finds it somewhat difficult to 
conceive that the Governor's vehement and repeated* 
attacks upon the speech and the teachers who sanctioned 
its delivery were evoked solely by a single and incidental 
sentence in the speech, — a sentence which voiced no gen- 
eral demand for increased university appropriations, nor 
even a demand for any particular appropriation, and which 
made against the state no general charge of parsimony in 
the support of its educational institutions, but merely criti- 
cized a particular reason which the speaker declared had 
been offered for opposing a particular appropriation. It is 
indicated by Mr. Sevy's affidavit that the Governor's dis- 
approval of the speech was due in part to the political ten- 
dencies which it was regarded as manifesting; and that the 
President of the University felt it to be a matter of some 
importance to ascertain that at least one of the teachers 
who ha-d approved the speech was not an adherent of any 
political party opposed to that of the Governor. 

(b) It is, then, established that the President and Regents 
had reason to believe that the Governor would regard con- 
ditions in the University with disapproval, and would prob- 

* Gevernor Spry has also referred with censure to Mr. Sevy's oration in 
public addresses. 



EEPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OP UTAH 73 

ably be hostile to the university appropriations bills, unless 
the teachers responsible for permitting the delivery of Mr. 
Sevy's oration were disciplined. It is also a fact that one 
of these teachers, the only one of subordinate rank, and the 
one chiefly responsible for Mr. Sevy's selection as a com- 
mencement orator — Mr. C. W. Snow, instructor in Eng- 
lish — was among the men ''relieved of their positions," and 
that the President's recommendation regarding him was 
announced while the legislature was in session and the uni- 
versity appropriation bills were pending. Mr. Snow states : 
''I urged the appointment of Mr. Sevy as speaker before 
Professor Lyman, the Chairman of the Faculty Committee, 
which was to select the speaker. I urged him because I 
knew he would talk on the Utah situation." The only 
other teacher who has been shown to have formally passed 
upon the speech was dean of the college, had been for many 
years in the service of the University, was widely known and 
highly esteemed in the community, and was a member of 
the same political party as the Governor. He was not 
dismissed, though he was led by the Board's action of 
March 17 to resign. 

It is evident that there is some striking circumstantial 
evidence pointing to a connection between the attitude of 
the Governor and the dismissal of Mr. Snow. The "Public 
Statement" of the Board of Regents, declares that "the 
address of Milton H. Sevy had nothing whatsoever to do 
with the action taken" on March 17. The members of the 
Board, however, were evidently not in a position to aflSrm 
of their own knowledge as to all of the influences which had 
afl"ected, or the motives which had actuated, President 
Kingsbury in making his recommendation against Mr. 
Snow. The President's own answers (above cited) to the 
Committee's questions concerning this incident are clearly 
evasive, and indicate an unwillingness to inform the Com- 
mittee as to the facts of the matter. Nevertheless the 
Committee does not find that there is conclusive evidence 
establishing a connection between the Governor's demand 



74 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

for action against the teachers who had approved the speech 
of Mr. Sevy, and the President's recommendation that one 
of those teachers be not reappointed.* The Committee is, 
however, of the opinion that the circumstances of the case 
are such as to make it highly desirable that an official in- 
vestigation into the matter be made by some local body 
having the power to summon witnesses. 

* There has been brought to the Committee's notice certain hear-say 
evidence, tending to show a direct connection between the two facts. As 
the Committee has been unable to secure the direct testimony of the per- 
sons immediately cognizant of the circumstances alleged, it has disregarded 
this evidence in reaching its conclusion. 



V. THE CHARGE OF SECTARIAN INFLUENCE 
UPON APPOINTMENTS 

It has been charged by some of the resigning Professors 
and by graduates of the University that sectarian rehgious 
influence, or the desire of the administration to placate a 
certain religious body, has been responsible for certain re- 
cent appointments, and for the demotion of a Professor long 
in the service of the University. This charge does not, as a 
rule, appear expressly among the reasons originally given 
by the resigning Professors for their action. But it is clear 
from subsequent statements that in the case of several of 
these teachers one of the principal motives for resignation 
was a belief that the President had of late been subject to 
increasing pressure to fill important positions in the Faculty 
with men selected, not primarily on grounds of scholarship 
and teaching ability, but because of their connection with 
the religious denomination to which the majority of the 
people of the state, and a majority of the Board of Regents, 
adhere — the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 
commonly known as the Mormon Church.* It was further 
believed by some of the resigning Professors that the Pres- 
ident had more than once yielded to this pressure; and that 
the University was in consequence losing its non-sectarian 
character. Though the Committee would gladly avoid 
dealing with an issue of this sort, it feels itself obligated, in 
view of the seriousness of the charge and the place that it 
has had in the controversy, to examine the evidence bearing 
upon the matter. This evidence is indirect, and, as laid 
before the Committee, consists in the following circum- 
stances : 

1. Mr. Perry G. Snow was in 1911 appointed Professor of 
Anatomy in the School of Medicine, and shortly after, Act- 

* President Kingsbury is not himself a member of this body. 

75 



76 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

ing Dean of the School. He received the degree of bachelor 
of arts from the University of Utah in 1909. At the time 
of the former appointment, he was a second-year student in 
a medical school ; and at the time of the latter appointment, 
he had not yet taken any degree in medicine. Mr. Snow is 
a member of the Mormon Church, and of a family promi- 
nent in the history of that body. 

2. More closely related to the present difficulties in the 
University are the changes in the staff of the Department 
of English made by the Board of Regents in March, 1915. 
On this date, in accordance with a recommendation of the 
President previously made public, Prof. George M. Marshall 
was removed from the headship of the department of Eng- 
lish (but not from his professorship), and Mr. O. J. P. Widt- 
soe was appointed to a professorship in English and to the 
headship of the department — thereby outranking also Mr. 
F. W. Reynolds, Professor of English. The relevant facts 
concerning the Professor demoted, and his successor, so far 
as the Committee has been able to ascertain them, are as 
follows : 

(a) Professor Marshall, a bachelor of arts of Cornell 
(1887) and a master of arts of Harvard (1905), was the 
senior member of the Faculty (after President Kingsbury), 
and had been a teacher in the University for twenty-three 
years. He has published an edition of Dry den's ''Palamon 
and Arcite," and articles in the tenth (American) edition of 
the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Mr. Marshall is not a mem- 
ber of the Mormon Church. There is evidence that he has 
frequently been criticized by individual members and offi- 
cials of that church on two grounds. The first complaint 
was that he had not recommended Mormons for appoint- 
ment in his department. Dean Holman states to the Com- 
mittee that in his presence "Professor Marshall was on one 
occasion charged by Prof. J. H. Paul with never having em- 
ployed a Mormon, and with preferring Eastern men." 
With regard to this complaint. Professor Marshall declares 
that the assertion that he never recommended Mormons is 
untrue; but that it is a fact that he has for the most part 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 77 

sought to secure instructors, especially in English composi- 
tion, from Eastern universities having a special reputation 
for the training which they give in this subject. 

The other complaint which appears to have been made 
of Professor Marshall by some members of the Mormon 
Church has been that in courses in the history of English 
literature he has frequently expressed admiration of the 
Church of England, and that in a course on Dante he has 
spoken in a favorable manner of the Roman Catholic 
Church. With respect to the latter complaint, five recent 
students under Professor Marshall, in a letter to this Com- 
mittee, write: 

His course in Dante is especially fine, and the only criticism 
has been not because of lack of knowledge, but because of empha- 
sizing the historical significance of Catholic theology. 

The Committee is in possession of no evidence to indicate 
that Professor Marshall's references to certain religious 
bodies were of an improper character. The facts here 
mentioned are significant only in so far as they tend to show 
that Professor Marshall's management of the English de- 
partment was viewed with disfavor by members of the Mor- 
mon denomination. 

The reason officially given for Mr. Marshall's demotion 
was that he ''had not retained the full efficiency and vigor 
that is expected and demanded of Professors and instruc- 
tors."* The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, 
Professor Cummings, expresses the opinion that Professor 
Marshall was an able and eflficient teacher, remarkably de- 
voted to his work. A letter prepared by a committee of 
five of Professor Marshall's students states: 

When the news was confirmed that Professor Marshall had 
been demoted on a charge of inefficiency, there was much indig- 
nation, and some of us students circulated a petition among others 
of his present students, containing statements of appreciation of 
him and his work. Two-thirds of his students in the regular 

* "Public Statement," page 14. 



78 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

course signed this petition, and four out of five of those studying 
for an M.A. degree. The majority of the students who did not 
sign the petition explained that though they appreciated Professor 
Marshall's scholarship and work, they did not v/ant to antagonize 

the President of the University 

We know that the charges brought against Professor Marshall 
are preposterous, and we hope that you will take into considera- 
tion, in summing up his case, the elements with which we are 
obliged to contend. Very few have criticized Professor Marshall 
when asked to sign the petition and these few criticisms were 
directed, not at all against his ability as a teacher, but rather 
against certain views he has expressed. 

This letter is accompanied by a deposition by Mrs. Helen 
S. Sanford, testifying to the truth of the statements of fact 
contained therein. The student newspaper, The University 
Chronicle,* expresses the opinion that ''Professor Marshall's 
department has been filled with the most progressive and 
up-to-date men in the Faculty. 

(b) Mr. O. J. P. Widtsoe has been good enough to com- 
municate, at the Committee's request, an outline of his pro- 
fessional career. In condensed form, it is as follows: 

B.S. (in chemistry), Utah Agricultural College, 1897; engaged 
in missionary work on islands of South Pacific, 1897-1901; head 
of department of chemistry and physics, and teacher of English, 
in Latter Day Saints' High School, 1901-1903; graduate student 
in Enghsh, Harvard University, 1903-1905; A.M., Harvard, 1905; 
head of department of English, Latter Day Saints' High School, 
1905-1915; Principal, 1909-1915, of the Latter Day Saints' High 
School, including also the business college, night school and sum- 
mer school. Has taught in summer sessions at Utah Agricultural 
College, Brigham Young University, and University of Utah. 

Publications: "The Restoration of the Gospel," (a volume of 
Mormon apologetics, consisting chiefly of lessons prepared for 
the Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement Association, 1910- 
1911), with an introduction by Joseph F. Smith, Jr., of the Quorum 
of Twelve Apostles, 1912. Editor: The Juvenile Instructor, a 

* It should be remarked that this paper has throughout the controversy 
been antagonistic to President Kingsbury. 



REPORT OF CONDITIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 79 

monthly magazine devoted to the interests of the Sunday Schools 
of the Mormon Church. 

Mr. Widtsoe also holds the office of bishop in the Mormon 
Church. With reference to Mr. Widtsoe's appointment, 
the following question has been placed before President 
Kingsbury : 

Did Dr. Kingsbury at any time receive any suggestion, direct 
or indirect, from any official of the Mormon Church, with respect 
to the appointment of Mr. Widtsoe? 

A?iswer: No. 

Richard Young, Esq., Chairman of the Executive Com- 
mittee of the Board of Regents, and an official of the Mor- 
mon Church, also states that, so far as he is aware, the 
proposal for the demotion of Professor Marshall and for 
the appointment of Mr. Widtsoe came from President 
Kingsbury himself.* In his oral statement to the Secre- 
tary of this Association, Dr. Kingsbury, in reply to an inter- 
rogation upon this point, said that, while it was his usual 
custom before filling positions in the Faculty to secure from 
other universities suggestions and recommendations of suit- 
able men, he had not sought such suggestions before appoint- 
ing Mr. Widtsoe to the headship of the department of 
English. 

The Committee has, of course, no means of judging of 
the general abilities, and the skill as teachers, of Mr. P. G. 
Snow and Mr. Widtsoe; it has no reason to doubt that they 
are of the highest character. It seems to the Committee, 
however, to be evident that, considering only the length of 
training and the professional experience of the appointees, 
these appointments were such as to justify the surprise 
which they evoked among a number of members of the 
Utah Faculty. The essential facts with regard to Mr. 
Widtsoe are that, when placed over a departmental staff of 
seven Professors and instructors, he had had only two years 
of post-graduate study in his subject; that he had never been 

* Oral statement to Secretary of this Association. 



80 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

a member of a college or university faculty and without 
experience in regular college teaching; that he had for the 
six years preceding his appointment been engaged in the 
heavy duties of school administration necessarily entailed 
by the principalship of a combined high school, business 
college, night school and summer school; and that his only 
publications were works of theological controversy and de- 
nominational apologetics. This preparation is not such as 
is at present usually expected in those appointed to head- 
ships of important departments in either colleges or uni- 
versities of good standing. 

These facts, however, are, in the Committee's opinion, 
not such as to enable it to judge of the motives of the Pres- 
ident of the University and of the Board of Regents in 
making the appointments and the demotion which have 
been called in question. 



VI. PRESENT ATTITUDE OF REGENTS TOWARD 
REQUESTS FOR AN INVESTIGATION 

One of the gravest and most regrettable features of the 
situation at the University of Utah, in this Committee's 
opinion, is the attitude which has from the beginning been 
consistently maintained by the Board of Regents toward 
numerous petitions asking for a thorough public investiga- 
tion of the recent incidents and of general university condi- 
tions. These petitions, which have come from the Faculty, 
the Alumni Association, the students, and a large number of 
citizens of the state of Utah, the Board has in all cases re- 
jected, declaring that it alone is responsible for the manage- 
ment of the University, that it has no doubts as to the cor- 
rectness of its past action and the rectitude of its own 
motives and those of the President and that it therefore 
cannot permit its action to be influenced by protests coming 
from others. This position seems to the Committee to show 
that the Board fails to understand, or at least to act upon, 
three fundamental facts: namely, that every institution of 
public education, and especially a state university, requires 
for its success the confidence and respect of the public ; that 
there can be no sure hold upon public confidence without an 
unflinching readiness to face publicity in regard to all official 
acts and policies; and that the only effective way in which 
any public body can meet serious charges brought by re- 
sponsible persons is by not merely permitting but demand- 
ing a searching and open inquiry into its methods. 

The foregoing examination of the evidence in the posses- 
sion of this Committee indicates that two or three features 
of the case have not yet been fully cleared up, and that so 
long as these incidents are not in all their aspects defini- 
tively investigated, certain suspicions with respect to con- 
ditions and administrative methods in the University are 

81 



82 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS 

likely, whether justly or otherwise, to continue to have 
currency. Nothing has done so much to strengthen the 
widespread feeling of distrust which has unquestionably 
been engendered by recent events at the University, as the 
attitude still held by the Board of Regents; a persistent re- 
fusal to permit the disclosure of all the facts in such cases, al- 
ways gives color to the belief that there exist facts unsuited 
for disclosure. The Committee gathers that the persist- 
ence of the Board in its present position has aroused on the 
part of a large section of the local public, including many of 
the alumni and a majority of the students, a degree of sus- 
picion, and even hostility, which must be a continuing detri- 
ment to the University's efficiency as an instrument of pub- 
lic education, and must affect disadvantageously the posi- 
tion and the work of teachers in the institution. 

In closing, your Committee desires to recall the fact that 
in so far as the chief point at issue is concerned — the offi- 
cial grounds for the dismissal of the officers in question — the 
conclusions of the Committee are found in the Summary on 
pages 40-41 of this report. 

The above findings are unanimously concurred in by the 
members of the Committee of Inquiry. 

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Chairman, 

Columbia University. 
John Dewey, 

Columbia University. 
Frank A. Fetter, 

Princeton University. 
James P. Lichtenberger, 

University of Pennsylvania. 
Arthur O. Love joy, 

Johns Hopkins University. 
RoscoE Pound, 

Harvard University. 
Howard C. Warren, 

Princeton University. 



^::r- 



